summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/28436.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorRoger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org>2025-10-15 02:38:26 -0700
committerRoger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org>2025-10-15 02:38:26 -0700
commit85976df2278a3051adc56bc8a14f7a7951dae9e4 (patch)
tree8b4a1bf6727fd3001c186110e1a6ddb7040b6553 /28436.txt
initial commit of ebook 28436HEADmain
Diffstat (limited to '28436.txt')
-rw-r--r--28436.txt14380
1 files changed, 14380 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/28436.txt b/28436.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4a8a58a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/28436.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,14380 @@
+The Project Gutenberg EBook of A Handbook of the English Language, by
+Robert Gordon Latham
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+Title: A Handbook of the English Language
+
+Author: Robert Gordon Latham
+
+Release Date: March 29, 2009 [EBook #28436]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ASCII
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A HANDBOOK OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Colin Bell, Keith Edkins and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This
+file was produced from images generously made available
+by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)
+
+
+
+
+
+Transcriber's note: A few typographical errors have been corrected: they
+are listed at the end of the text.
+
+[=a] signifies "a with macron"; [)e] "e with breve";
+['e] "e acute" (or stressed); [`e] "e grave"; [^e] "e circumflex";
+and so forth. "eth" and "thorn" are rendered "dh" and "th" respectively.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+A HAND-BOOK
+
+
+
+OF
+
+
+
+THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE,
+
+
+
+FOR THE USE OF
+
+
+
+STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITIES AND
+HIGHER CLASSES OF SCHOOLS.
+
+
+
+
+
+BY
+
+R. G. LATHAM, M.D., F.R.S.,
+
+LATE PROFESSOR OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE,
+UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LONDON.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+NEW-YORK: D. APPLETON & COMPANY, 443 & 445 BROADWAY. M.DCCC.LXIV.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CONTENTS.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+ PART I.
+
+ GENERAL ETHNOLOGICAL RELATIONS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
+
+ CHAPTER I.
+
+ GERMANIC ORIGIN OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.--DATE.
+
+ SECTION PAGE
+
+ 1. English language not British 1
+ 2. Real origin German 1
+ 3. Accredited immigrations and settlements 2
+ 4, 5. Criticism 4, 5
+
+ CHAPTER II.
+
+ GERMANIC ORIGIN OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.--THE GERMANIC AREA OF THE
+ PARTICULAR GERMANS WHO INTRODUCED IT.--EXTRACT FROM BEDA.
+
+ 6, 7. Jutes, Angles, and Saxons 6
+ 8, 9. Extract from Beda 6, 7
+ 10-13. Criticism 8-11
+ 14, 15. Angles 11, 12
+ 16. Saxons of Beda 12, 13
+ 17. Anglo-Saxon area 13
+ 18, 19. The Frisians 13, 14
+ 20. Anglo-Saxon area 14
+
+ CHAPTER III.
+
+ OF THE DIALECTS OF THE SAXON AREA, AND OF THE SO-CALLED OLD SAXON.
+
+ 21-29. Old Saxon and Anglo-Saxon 16, 17
+
+ CHAPTER IV.
+
+ AFFINITIES OF THE ENGLISH WITH THE LANGUAGES OF GERMANY AND SCANDINAVIA.
+
+ 30, 31. Gothic languages 18
+ 32-34. Divisions of the Gothic stock 18
+ 35. Moeso-Gothic 19
+ 36. Old High German 19
+ 37. Low German 19
+ 38. Frisian and Dutch 19
+ 39. Platt-Deutsch 20
+ 40, 41. Comparison 21-23
+
+ CHAPTER V.
+
+ ANALYSIS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.--GERMANIC ELEMENTS.--THE ANGLES.
+
+ 42. Analysis 24
+ 43-54. Angles--their relations 24-28
+ 55, 56. The Frisians 29, 30
+
+ CHAPTER VI.
+
+ THE CELTIC STOCK OF LANGUAGES AND THEIR RELATIONS TO THE ENGLISH.
+
+ 57. Branches of the Celtic stock 31
+ 58-60. Structure of Celtic tongues 31-33
+ 61-63. The Picts 33-35
+
+ CHAPTER VII.
+
+ THE ANGLO-NORMAN, AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE CLASSICAL STOCK.
+
+ 64. The classical languages 36
+ 65-67. Latin branch 36-40
+ 68, 69. Norman French 40, 41
+
+ PART II.
+
+ HISTORY AND ANALYSIS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
+
+ CHAPTER I.
+
+ HISTORICAL AND LOGICAL ELEMENTS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
+
+ 70. Celtic elements 45
+ 71. Latin of first period 46
+ 72. Anglo-Saxon 47
+ 73. Danish or Norse 47
+ 74. Roman of second period 49
+ 75. Anglo-Norman element 49
+ 76. Indirect Scandinavian elements 50
+ 77. Latin of third period 51
+ 78. Latin of fourth period 51
+ 79. Greek 52
+ 80-82. Tables 53-55
+ 83-90. Miscellaneous elements 55-60
+ 91-94. Hybridism and new words 60-62
+ 95. Historical and logical analysis 63
+
+ CHAPTER II.
+
+ THE RELATION OF THE ENGLISH TO THE ANGLO-SAXON, AND THE STAGES OF THE
+ ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
+
+ 96. Ancient and modern tongues 64
+ 97. Details 65-68
+ 98. Stages of the English language 68
+ 99. Semi-Saxon 69
+ 100-103. _Old_ English, &c. 70-72
+ 104. Present tendencies 73
+
+ PART III.
+
+ SOUNDS, LETTERS, PRONUNCIATION, SPELLING.
+
+ CHAPTER I.
+
+ GENERAL NATURE AND CERTAIN PROPERTIES OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS.
+
+ 105. Spelling and speaking 77
+ 106. Sounds and syllables 79
+ 107. Vowels 79
+ 108. Divisions 80
+ 109. Sharp and flat sounds 80
+ 110. Continuous and explosive 80
+ 111. General statements 81
+ 112. The sound of h 81
+
+ CHAPTER II.
+
+ SYSTEM OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS.
+
+ 113. Certain foreign sounds 82
+ 114. System of mutes 82
+ 115. Lenes and aspirates 83
+ 116. Fourfold character of mutes 84
+ 117. Y and w 84
+ 118, 119. Diphthongs 84
+ 120. Compound sounds 85
+ 121. Ng 85
+ 122, 123. Broad, slender; long, short;
+ dependent, independent vowels 85, 86
+ 124-126. System of sounds 86, 87
+
+ CHAPTER III.
+
+ OF CERTAIN COMBINATIONS OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS.
+
+ 127. Sharp and flat mutes 88
+ 128. Unstable combinations 89
+ 129. Effect of y 89
+ 130, 131. Double consonants rare 89
+ 132. True aspirates rare 90
+
+ CHAPTER IV.
+
+ EUPHONY AND THE PERMUTATION OF LETTERS.
+
+ 133. Euphony 92
+ 134. Permutation 93
+
+ CHAPTER V.
+
+ ON THE FORMATION OF SYLLABLES.
+
+ 135. Syllabification 95-97
+
+ CHAPTER VI.
+
+ ON QUANTITY.
+
+ 136. Long and short sounds 98
+ 137. Quantity of vowels--of syllables 98
+ 138. Classical and English measurements 99
+
+ CHAPTER VII.
+
+ ON ACCENT.
+
+ 139. Place of accents 101
+ 140. Distinctive accents 101
+ 141. Emphasis 102
+
+ CHAPTER VIII.
+
+ ORTHOGRAPHY.
+
+ 142. Orthoepy 103
+ 143-146. Principle of an alphabet 103-105
+ 147. Violations of it 105
+ 148. Rules 107
+ 149-151. Details of English 107-109
+ 152. Insufficiency 109
+ 153. Inconsistency 109
+ 154. Erroneousness 110
+ 155. Redundancy 110
+ 156. Unsteadiness 110
+ 157. Other defects 111
+ 158. Historical propriety 113
+ 159. Conventional spelling 113
+
+ CHAPTER IX.
+
+ HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE ENGLISH ALPHABET.
+
+ 160-166. Phoenician, Greek, Roman stages 116-124
+ 166-172. Anglo-Saxon alphabet 124-126
+ 173. Anglo-Norman alphabet 126
+ 174. Extract from _Ormulum_ 127
+ 175. Order of alphabet 128
+
+ PART IV.
+
+ ETYMOLOGY.
+
+ CHAPTER I.
+
+ ON THE PROVINCE OF ETYMOLOGY.
+
+ 176-179. Meaning of term 131-133
+
+ CHAPTER II.
+
+ ON GENDER.
+
+ 180. _Boy_ and _girl_ 134
+ 181. _Man-servant_ and _maid-servant_ 134
+ 182, 183. Forms like _genitrix_ 135
+ 184. Forms like _domina_ 136
+ 185-189. Genders in English 136, 137
+ 190-192. _The sun in _his_ glory; the moon
+ in _her_ wane_ 138
+ 193. Miscellaneous forms 139-142
+
+ CHAPTER III.
+
+ THE NUMBERS.
+
+ 194-197. Numbers in English 143, 144
+ 198. Rule 145
+ 199. Remarks 145
+ 200. Addition of -es 146
+ _Pence_, _alms_, &c. 147
+ _Mathematics_ 147
+ 201. _Children_ 149
+ 202. Form in -en 150
+ 203. _Men_, _feet_, &c. 150
+ 204. _Brethren_, &c. 150
+ 205. _Houses_ 152
+ 206. _Wives_, &c. 152
+
+ CHAPTER IV.
+
+ ON THE CASES.
+
+ 207-211. Nature of cases 154-156
+ 212. Accusatives 156
+ 213. Datives 157
+ 214. Genitives 157
+ 215. Instrumental 158
+ _All the better_ 158, 159
+ 216. Determination of cases 159
+ 217. Analysis of cases 160
+ 218. Form in -s 160
+
+ CHAPTER V.
+
+ THE PERSONAL PRONOUNS.
+
+ 219, 220. _I_, _we_, _us_, &c. 162
+ 221. _You_ 162
+ 222. _Me_ 163
+ 223-225. Cautions 163, 164
+
+ CHAPTER VI.
+
+ ON THE TRUE REFLECTIVE PRONOUN IN THE GOTHIC LANGUAGES, AND ON ITS
+ ABSENCE IN ENGLISH.
+
+ 226. How far found in English 165
+
+ CHAPTER VII.
+
+ THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS, ETC.
+
+ 227. _He_, _she_, _it_ 166
+ 228. _She_ 166
+ 229. _Her_, _him_, _his_, _its_, &c. 167
+ 230. _Theirs_ 167
+ 231. Table 168
+ 232. _These_ 169
+ 233. _Those_ 171
+
+ CHAPTER VIII.
+
+ THE RELATIVE, INTERROGATIVE, AND CERTAIN OTHER PRONOUNS.
+
+ 234. _Who_, _what_, &c. 173
+ 235. _Same_, &c. 173
+ 236. _Other_, _whether_ 177
+
+ CHAPTER IX.
+
+ ON CERTAIN FORMS IN -ER.
+
+ 237-239. Idea expressed by -er 179-181
+
+ CHAPTER X.
+
+ THE COMPARATIVE DEGREE.
+
+ 240. Form in -s 182
+ 241. _Elder_, &c. 183
+ 242. _Rather_ 183
+ 243, 244. Excess of expression 183
+ 245-247. _Better_ 183-185
+ 248. _Worse_ 185
+ 249. _More_ 185
+ 250. _Less_ 185
+ 251-253. _Near_, &c. 186
+ 254. Origin of superlative 186
+
+ CHAPTER XI.
+
+ THE SUPERLATIVE DEGREE.
+
+ 255, 256. _Former_ 188
+ 257. _Nearest_ 188
+ 258. _Next_ 188
+ 259, 260. _Upmost_, &c. 189, 190
+
+ CHAPTER XII.
+
+ THE CARDINAL NUMBERS.
+
+ 261. How far undeclined 191
+
+ CHAPTER XIII.
+
+ THE ORDINAL NUMBERS.
+
+ 262-264. _Seven_, _nine_, _ten_ 192
+ 265, 266. _Thirteen_, _thirty_ 193
+
+ CHAPTER XIV.
+
+ THE ARTICLES.
+
+ 267. _A_, _an_, _the_ 194
+
+ CHAPTER XV.
+
+ DIMINUTIVES, AUGMENTATIVES, AND PATRONYMICS.
+
+ 268-270. Diminutives 197-199
+ 271. Augmentatives 200
+ 272. Patronymics 200, 201
+
+ CHAPTER XVI.
+
+ GENTILE FORMS.
+
+ 273. _Wales_ 202
+
+ CHAPTER XVII.
+
+ ON THE CONNEXION BETWEEN THE NOUN AND VERB, AND ON THE INFLECTION OF THE
+ INFINITIVE MOOD.
+
+ 274-281. The verb, how far a noun 203-206
+
+ CHAPTER XVIII.
+
+ ON DERIVED VERBS.
+
+ 282. Divisions of verbs 207
+ 282. Derivation 208, 209
+
+ CHAPTER XIX.
+
+ ON THE PERSONS.
+
+ 283. Persons in English 210
+ 284, 285. Historical view 211
+ 286. Form in -t 212
+ 287. _Thou spakest_, &c. 212
+ 288. _We loves_ 213
+
+ CHAPTER XX.
+
+ ON THE NUMBERS OF VERBS.
+
+ 289. Numbers in English 214
+ 290. _Ran_, _run_, &c. 215
+
+ CHAPTER XXI.
+
+ ON MOODS.
+
+ 291-292. Moods in English 216
+
+ CHAPTER XXII.
+
+ ON TENSES IN GENERAL.
+
+ 293. _Strike_, _struck_ 217
+ 294-296. [Greek: Etupton], &c. 217, 218
+ 297. Reduplication 219
+ 298. _Weak_ or _strong_ 220
+
+ CHAPTER XXIII.
+
+ THE STRONG TENSES.
+
+ 299. _Sing_, _sang_, _sung_ 221
+ 300-303. Tables 222-225
+
+ CHAPTER XXIV.
+
+ THE WEAK TENSES.
+
+ 304. _Stabbed_, &c. 226
+ 305-307. Divisions 227, 228
+ 309. _Bought_, _sought_ 228
+ 309. Forms in -te and -ode 229
+ 310-312. _Bred_, _beat_, &c. 230
+ 313. _Leave_, _left_ 231
+ 314. _Made_, _had_ 231
+ 314. _Would_, _should_, _could_ 231
+ 315. _Aught_ 231
+ 316. _Durst_, _must_, &c. 232
+ 317. _This will do_ 233
+ 318. _Mind_ 234
+ 319. _Yode_ 234
+ 320. _Did_ 234
+
+ CHAPTER XXV.
+
+ ON CONJUGATION.
+
+ 321, 322. Weak and strong conjugations natural
+ 235-237
+
+ CHAPTER XXVI.
+
+ DEFECTIVENESS AND IRREGULARITY.
+
+ 323-325. Irregularity 238
+ 326. Vital and obsolete processes 240
+ 327. Processes of necessity, &c. 241
+ 328. Ordinary processes 241
+ 329. Positive 242
+ 330. Normal 242
+ 331. _Could_ 243
+ 332. _Quoth_ 244
+ 333. Real irregular verbs few 244
+
+ CHAPTER XXVII.
+
+ THE IMPERSONAL VERBS.
+
+ 334, 335. _Me-seems_, _me-listeth_ 246
+
+ CHAPTER XXVIII.
+
+ THE VERB SUBSTANTIVE.
+
+ 336. Not irregular 247
+ 337. _Was_ 247
+ 338-341. _Be_ 248, 249
+ 342. _An_ 249
+ 343. _Worth_ 250
+
+ CHAPTER XXIX.
+
+ THE PRESENT PARTICIPLE.
+
+ 344. Forms in -ing 251
+ 345. Forms in -ung 252
+
+ CHAPTER XXX.
+
+ THE PAST PARTICIPLE.
+
+ 346. Forms in -en 254
+ 347, 348. _Drunken_ 254
+ 349. _Forlorn_ 255
+ 350. Forms in -ed 255
+ 351. The prefix Y 256
+
+ CHAPTER XXXI.
+
+ COMPOSITION.
+
+ 352-357. Nature of compounds 258-261
+ 358-361. Accent 261-266
+ 362. Obscure compounds 266
+ 363-365. Exceptions 266, 267, 268
+ 366. _Peacock_, _peahen_ 269
+ 367. _Nightingale_ 269
+ 368. Improper compounds 270
+ 369. Decomposites 270
+ 370. Combinations 270, 271
+
+ CHAPTER XXXII.
+
+ ON DERIVATION AND INFLECTION.
+
+ 371-373. Their nature 272-275
+
+ CHAPTER XXXIII.
+
+ ADVERBS.
+
+ 374, 375. Their division 276
+ 376-379. Adverbs of deflection 277
+ 380. _Darkling_ 278
+
+ CHAPTER XXXIV.
+
+ ON CERTAIN ADVERBS OF PLACE.
+
+ 381-384. _Hither_, _thither_, &c 279
+ 385. _Hence_, &c. 280
+ 386. _Yonder_ 280
+ 387. _Anon_ 281
+
+ CHAPTER XXXV.
+
+ ON WHEN, THEN, AND THAN.
+
+ 388, 389. Their origin 282
+
+ CHAPTER XXXVI.
+
+ PREPOSITIONS AND CONJUNCTIONS.
+
+ 390. Prepositions 283
+ 391. Conjunctions 283
+ 392. _Yes_, _No_ 283
+ 393. Particles 283
+
+ CHAPTER XXXVII.
+
+ ON THE GRAMMATICAL POSITION OF THE WORDS _mine_ AND _thine_.
+
+ 394-407. Equivalent to _meus_ and _tuus_, rather than possessive
+ cases 284-290
+
+ CHAPTER XXXVIII.
+
+ ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE WEAK PRAETERITE.
+
+ 408. Grimm's view 291
+ 409, 410. Remarks of Dr. Trithen 291-293
+
+ PART V.
+
+ SYNTAX.
+
+ CHAPTER I.
+
+ ON SYNTAX IN GENERAL.
+
+ 411, 412. Syntax 294
+ 413. Personification 294
+ 414. Ellipsis 295
+ 415. Pleonasm 295
+ 416. Zeugma 295
+ 417. _Pros to semainomenon_ 296
+ 418. Apposition 296
+ 419. Collectiveness 297
+ 420. Reduction 297
+ 421. Determination of part of speech 298
+ 422-424. Convertibility 298, 299
+ 425. _The Blacks of Africa_ 299
+ 426. _None of your ifs_ 300
+ 427. Convertible words numerous in English 300
+
+ CHAPTER II.
+
+ SYNTAX OF SUBSTANTIVES.
+
+ 428. _Rundell and Bridge's_ 301
+ 429. _Right and left_ 301
+
+ CHAPTER III.
+
+ SYNTAX OF ADJECTIVES.
+
+ 430. Pleonasm 302
+ 431. Collocation 302
+ 432. Government 302
+ 433. _More wise_, _wiser_ 303
+ 434. _The _better_ of the two_ 304
+ 435. Syntax of adjectives simple 304
+
+ CHAPTER IV.
+
+ SYNTAX OF PRONOUNS.
+
+ 436. Pleonasm 305
+ 437. _Father's_, not _father his_ 305
+ 438. Pleonasm and ellipses allied 306
+
+ CHAPTER V.
+
+ THE TRUE PERSONAL PRONOUNS.
+
+ 439. _Pronomen reverentiae_ 307
+ 440. _Dativus ethicus_ 307
+ 441. Reflected pronoun 307
+ 442. Reflected neuters 308
+ 443. Equivocal reflective 308
+
+ CHAPTER VI.
+
+ ON THE SYNTAX OF THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS, AND THE PRONOUNS OF THE
+ THIRD PERSON.
+
+ 444, 445. _His_ and _its_ 310, 311
+
+ CHAPTER VII.
+
+ ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORD _self_.
+
+ 446, 447. _Myself_, _himself_, &c. 312, 313
+
+ CHAPTER VIII.
+
+ ON THE POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS.
+
+ 448-451. _My_ and _mine_ 314-316
+
+ CHAPTER IX.
+
+ THE RELATIVE PRONOUNS.
+
+ 452-456. Their concord 317, 318
+ 457. Ellipsis 318
+ 458. Equivocal antecedent 319
+
+ CHAPTER X.
+
+ ON THE INTERROGATIVE PRONOUN.
+
+ 459, 460. Direct and oblique questions 320
+
+ CHAPTER XI.
+
+ THE RECIPROCAL PRONOUNS.
+
+ 461, 462. Their construction 322, 323
+
+ CHAPTER XII.
+
+ THE INDETERMINATE PRONOUNS.
+
+ 463-466. Use of _it_ 324, 325
+ 467, 468. Use of _them_ 325
+
+ CHAPTER XX.
+
+ ON THE TENSES.
+
+ 486. Present 342
+ 486, 487. Preterite 342
+
+ CHAPTER XXI.
+
+ SYNTAX OF THE PERSONS OF VERBS.
+
+ 488, 489. Their concord 344
+
+ CHAPTER XXII.
+
+ ON THE VOICES OF VERBS.
+
+ 490. _Hight_ 345
+
+ CHAPTER XXIII.
+
+ ON THE AUXILIARY VERBS.
+
+ 491. Their classification 346-348
+ 492. _I have ridden_ 348
+ 493. _I am to speak_ 351
+ 494. _I am to blame_ 351
+ 495. _I am beaten_ 351
+
+ CHAPTER XXIV.
+
+ OF ADVERBS.
+
+ 496, 497. Their syntax simple 353
+ 498. Termination -ly 354
+ 499. _To walk and ride_ 354
+ 500. _From whence_, &c. 354, 355
+
+ CHAPTER XXV.
+
+ ON PREPOSITIONS.
+
+ 501. _Climb up a tree_ 356
+ 502. _Part of the body_ 356
+
+ CHAPTER XXVI.
+
+ ON CONJUNCTIONS.
+
+ 503, 504. Their nature 357-359
+ 505. Their government 359
+ 506-511. The subjunctive mood 359-364
+ 512. Use of _that_ 364
+ 513. Succession of tenses 364
+ 514. Disjunctives 365
+
+ CHAPTER XXVII.
+
+ THE SYNTAX OF THE NEGATIVE.
+
+ 515. Its place 366
+ 516. Its distribution 366
+ 517. Two negatives 367
+ 518. Questions of appeal 367
+
+ CHAPTER XXVIII.
+
+ ON THE CASE ABSOLUTE.
+
+ 519. Its participial character 369
+
+ PART VI.
+
+ PROSODY.
+
+ 520. Derivation of the word 371
+ 521, 522. Importance of accent 371
+ 523-526. Measures 372, 373
+ 527. Metrical notation 374
+ 528-535. Rhyme 374-377
+ 536. Blank verse 377
+ 537, 538. Last syllable indifferent 378
+ 539, 540. Names of common English metres 379-384
+
+ PART VII.
+
+ DIALECTS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
+
+ 541. Saxons and Angles 385
+ 542-544. Dialects not coincident 385, 386
+ 545, 546. Traces of the Danes 386, 387
+ 547 Mercian origin of the written English 387
+
+ NOTES 393
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+AN INTRODUCTION
+
+TO THE STUDY OF
+
+THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+PART I.
+
+GENERAL ETHNOLOGICAL RELATIONS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+CHAPTER I.
+
+GERMANIC ORIGIN OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.--DATE.
+
+s. 1. The first point to be remembered in the history of the English
+language, is that it was not the primitive and original tongue of any of
+the British Islands, nor yet of any portion of them. Indeed, of the _whole_
+of Great Britain it is not the language at the present moment. Welsh is
+spoken in Wales, Manks in the Isle of Man, and Scotch Gaelic in the
+Highlands of Scotland; besides which there is the Irish Gaelic in Ireland.
+
+s. 2. The next point to be considered is the real origin and the real
+affinities of the English language.
+
+Its _real_ origin is on the continent of Europe, and its _real_ affinities
+are with certain languages there spoken. To speak more specifically, the
+native country of the English language is _Germany_; and the _Germanic_
+languages are those that are the most closely connected with our own. In
+Germany, languages and dialects allied to each other and allied to the
+mother-tongue of the English have been spoken from times anterior to
+history; and these, for most purposes of philology, may be considered as
+the aboriginal languages and dialects of that country.
+
+s. 3. _Accredited details of the different immigrations from Germany into
+Britain._--Until lately the details of the different Germanic invasions of
+England, both in respect to the particular tribes by which they were made,
+and the order in which they succeeded each other, were received with but
+little doubt, and as little criticism.
+
+Respecting the tribes by which they were made, the current opinion was,
+that they were chiefly, if not exclusively, those of the Jutes, the Saxons,
+and the Angles.
+
+The particular chieftains that headed each descent were also supposed to be
+known, as well as the different localities upon which they descended.[1]
+These were as follows:--
+
+_First settlement of invaders from Germany._--The account of this gives us
+A.D. 449 for the first permanent Germanic tribes settled in Britain.
+Ebbsfleet, in the Isle of Thanet, was the spot where they landed; and the
+particular name that these tribes gave themselves was that of _Jutes_.
+Their leaders were Hengist and Horsa. Six years after their landing they
+had established the kingdom of Kent; so that the county of Kent was the
+first district where the original British was superseded by the
+mother-tongue of the present English, introduced from Germany.
+
+_Second settlement of invaders from Germany._--A.D. 477 invaders from
+Northern Germany made the second permanent settlement in Britain. The coast
+of Sussex was the spot whereon they landed. The particular name that these
+tribes gave themselves was that of _Saxons_. Their leader was Ella. They
+established the kingdom of the South Saxons (Sussex or Sudh-Seaxe); so that
+the county of Sussex was the second district where the original British was
+superseded by the mother-tongue of the present English, introduced from
+Germany.
+
+_Third settlement of invaders from Germany._--A.D. 495 invaders from
+Northern Germany made the third permanent settlement in Britain. The coast
+of Hampshire was the spot whereon they landed. Like the invaders last
+mentioned, these tribes were Saxons. Their leader was Cerdic. They
+established the kingdom of the West Saxons (Wessex or West-Seaxe); so that
+the county of Hants was the third district where the original British was
+superseded by the mother-tongue of the present English, introduced from
+Germany.
+
+_Fourth settlement of invaders from Germany._--A.D. 530, certain Saxons
+landed in Essex, so that the county of Essex [East-Seaxe] was the fourth
+district where the original British was superseded by the mother-tongue of
+the present English, introduced from Northern Germany.
+
+_Fifth settlement of invaders from Germany._--These were _Angles_ in
+Norfolk and Suffolk. The precise date of this settlement is not known. The
+fifth district where the original British was superseded by the
+mother-tongue of the present English was the counties of Norfolk and
+Suffolk; the particular dialect introduced being that of the _Angles_.
+
+_Sixth settlement of invaders from Germany._--A.D. 547 invaders from
+Northern Germany made the sixth permanent settlement in Britain. The
+southeastern counties of Scotland, between the rivers Tweed and Forth, were
+the districts where they landed. They were of the tribe of the Angles, and
+their leader was Ida. The south-eastern parts of Scotland constituted the
+sixth district where the original British was superseded by the
+mother-tongue of the present English, introduced from Northern Germany,
+
+s. 4. It would be satisfactory if these details rested upon contemporary
+evidence. This, however, is far from being the case.
+
+1. _The evidence to the details just given, is not historical, but
+traditional._--a. Beda,[2] from whom it is chiefly taken, wrote nearly 300
+years after the supposed event, i.e., the landing of Hengist and Horsa, in
+A.D. 449.
+
+b. The nearest approach to a contemporary author is Gildas,[3] and _he_
+wrote full 100 years after it.
+
+2. _The account of Hengist's and Horsa's landing, has elements which are
+fictional rather than historical_--a. Thus "when we find Hengist and Horsa
+approaching the coasts of Kent in three keels, and Aelli effecting a
+landing in Sussex with the same number, we are reminded of the Gothic
+tradition which carries a migration of Ostrogoths,[4] Visigoths, and
+Gepidae, also in three vessels, to the mouth of the Vistula."--Kemble,
+"Saxons in England."
+
+b. The murder of the British chieftains by Hengist is told _totidem
+verbis_, by Widukind[5] and others, of the Old Saxons in Thuringia.
+
+c. Geoffry of Monmouth[6] relates also, how "Hengist obtained from the
+Britons as much land as could be enclosed by an ox-hide; then, cutting the
+hide into thongs, enclosed a much larger space than the granters intended,
+on which he erected Thong Castle--a tale too familiar to need illustration,
+and which runs throughout the mythus of many nations. Among the Old Saxons,
+the tradition is in reality the same, though recorded with a slight variety
+of detail. In their story, a lapfull of earth is purchased at a dear rate
+from a Thuringian; the companions of the Saxon jeer him for his imprudent
+bargain; but he sows the purchased earth upon a large space of ground,
+which he claims, and, by the aid of his comrades, ultimately wrests it from
+the Thuringians."--Kemble, "Saxons in England."
+
+3. _There is direct evidence in favour of their having been German tribes
+in England anterior to_ A.D. 447.--a. At the close of the Marcomannic
+war,[7] Marcus Antoninus transplanted a number of Germans into Britain.
+
+b. Alemannic auxiliaries served along with Roman legions under
+Valentinian.[8]
+
+c. _The Notitia utriusque Imperii_,[9] of which the latest date is half a
+century earlier than the epoch of Hengist, mentions, as an officer of
+state, the _Comes littoris Saxonici per Britannias_; his government
+extending along the coast from Portsmouth to the Wash.
+
+s. 5. _Inference._--As it is nearly certain, that 449 A.D. is _not_ the
+date of the first introduction of German tribes into Britain, we must
+consider that the displacement of the original British began at an
+_earlier_ period than the one usually admitted, and, consequently, that it
+was more _gradual_ than is usually supposed.
+
+Perhaps, if we substitute the middle of the _fourth_, instead of the middle
+of the _fifth_ century, as the epoch of the Germanic immigrations into
+Britain, we shall not be far from the truth.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER II.
+
+GERMANIC ORIGIN OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.--THE GERMANIC AREA OF THE
+PARTICULAR GERMANS WHO INTRODUCED IT.--EXTRACT FROM BEDA.
+
+s. 6. Out of the numerous tribes and nations of Germany, _three_ have been
+more especially mentioned as the chief, if not the exclusive, sources of
+the present English population of Great Britain. These are the _Jutes_, the
+_Saxons_, and the _Angles_.
+
+s. 7. Now, it is by no means certain that this was the case. On the
+contrary, good reasons can be given for believing that the Angles and
+Saxons were the same people, and that no such nation as the _Jutes_ ever
+left Germany to settle in Great Britain.
+
+s. 8. The chief authority for the division of the German invaders into the
+three nations just mentioned is Beda; and the chief text is the following
+extract from his "Ecclesiastical History." It requires particular
+attention, and will form the basis of much criticism, and frequently be
+referred to.
+
+"Advenerunt autem de tribus Germaniae populis fortioribus, id est
+Saxonibus, Anglis, Jutis. De Jutarum origine sunt Cantuarii, et Victuarii,
+hoc est ea gens quae Vectam tenet insulam et ea quae usque hodie in
+provincia Occidentalium Saxonum Jutarum natio nominatur, posita contra
+ipsam insulam Vectam. De Saxonibus, id est, ea regione quae nunc Antiquorum
+Saxonum cognominatur, venere Orientales Saxones, Meridiani Saxones, Occidui
+Saxones. Porro de Anglis hoc est de illa patria quae Angulus dicitur, et ab
+illo tempore usque hodie manere desertus inter provincias Jutarum et
+Saxonum perhibetur, Orientales Angli, Mediterranei Angli, Merci, tota
+Northanhymbrorum progenies, id est illarum gentium quae ad Boream Humbri
+fluminis inhabitant, caeterique Anglorum populi sunt orti"--"Historia
+Ecclesiastica," i. 15.
+
+s. 9. This was written about A.D. 731, 131 years after the introduction of
+Christianity, and nearly 300 after the supposed landing of Hengist and
+Horsa in A.D. 449.
+
+It is the first passage which contains the names of either the _Angles_ or
+the _Jutes_. Gildas, who wrote more than 150 years earlier, mentions only
+the _Saxons_--"ferocissimi illi nefandi nominis _Saxones_."
+
+It is, also, the passage which all subsequent writers have either
+translated or adopted. Thus it re-appears in Alfred, and again in the Saxon
+Chronicle.[10]
+
+ "Of Jotum comon Cantware and Wihtware, thaet is seo maeiadh the n['u]
+ eardath on Wiht, and thaet cynn on West-Sexum dhe man gyt haet
+ I['u]tnacyun. Of Eald-Seaxum comon E['a]st-Seaxan, and Sudh-Seaxan and
+ West-Seaxan. Of Angle comon (se ['a] sidhdhan st['o]d westig betwix
+ I['u]tum and Seaxum) E['a]st-Engle, Middel-Angle, Mearce, and ealle
+ Nordhymbra."
+
+ From the Jutes came the inhabitants of Kent and of Wight, that is, the
+ race that now dwells in Wight, and that tribe amongst the West-Saxons
+ which is yet called the Jute tribe. From the Old-Saxons came the
+ East-Saxons, and South-Saxons, and West-Saxons. From the Angles, land
+ (which has since always stood waste betwixt the Jutes and Saxons) came
+ the East-Angles, Middle-Angles, Mercians, and all the Northumbrians.
+
+s. 10. A portion of these extracts will now be submitted to criticism; that
+portion being the statement concerning the _Jutes_.
+
+The words _usque hodie--Jutarum natio nominatur_ constitute contemporary
+and unexceptionable evidence to the existence of a people with a name like
+that of the _Jutes_ in the time of Beda--or A.D. 731.
+
+The exact name is not so certain. The term _Jutnacyn_ from the Anglo-Saxon
+Chronicle is in favour of the notion that it began with the sounds of j and
+u, in other words that it was _Jut_.
+
+But the term _Geatum_, which we find in Alfred, favours the form in g
+followed by ea.
+
+Thirdly, the forms _Wihtware_, and _Wihttan_, suggest the likelihood of the
+name being _Wiht_.
+
+Lastly, there is a passage in Asserius[11] which gives us the form
+_Gwith_--"Mater" (of Alfred the Great) "quoque ejusdem Osburgh nominabatur,
+religiosa nimium foemina, nobilis ingenio, nobilis et genere; quae erat
+filia Oslac famosi pincernae Aethelwulf regis; qui Oslac Gothus erat
+natione, ortus enim erat de Gothis et Jutis; de semine scilicet Stuf et
+Wihtgur, duorum fratrum et etiam comitum, qui accept[^a] potestate Vectis
+insulae ab avunculo suo Cerdic rege et Cynric filio suo, consobrino eorum,
+paucos Britones ejusdem insulae accolas, quos in e[^a] invenire potuerant,
+in loco qui dicitur, _Gwithgaraburgh_ occiderunt, caeteri enim accolae
+ejusdem insulae ante sunt occisi aut exules aufugerant."--Asserius, "De
+Gestis Alfredi Regis."
+
+Now, _Gwith-gara-burgh_ means the _burg_ or _town of_ the _With-ware_;[12]
+these being, undoubtedly, no Germans at all, but the native Britons of the
+Isle of Wight (Vectis), whose designation in Latin would be _Vecticolae_ or
+_Vectienses_.
+
+This being the case, how can they be descended from German or Danish
+_Jutes_? and how can we reconcile the statement of Beda with that of Asser?
+
+s. 11. The answer to this will be given after another fact has been
+considered.
+
+Precisely the same confusion between the sounds of w, j, g, io, eae, u, and
+i, which occurs with the so-called _Jutes_ of the Isle of Wight, occurs
+with the Jutlanders of the peninsula of Jutland. The common forms are
+_Jutland_, _Jute_, _Jutones_, and _Jutenses_, but they are not the only
+ones. In A.D. 952, we find "Dania cismarina quam _Vitland_ incolae
+appellant."--"Annales Saxonici."[13]
+
+s. 12. Putting these facts together I adopt the evidence of Asser as to the
+_Gwithware_ being British, and consider them as simple _Vecti-colae_, or
+inhabitants of the Isle of _Wight_. They are also the _Vectuarii_ of Beda,
+the _Wihtware_ of the Saxon Chronicle, and the _Wihtsaetan_ of Alfred.
+
+The Jutes of Hampshire--i.e., the "Jutarum natio--posita contra ipsam
+insulam Vectam," and the _Jutnacyn_, I consider to have been the same;
+except that they had left the Isle of Wight to settle on the opposite
+coast; probably flying before their German conquerors, in which case they
+would be the _exules_ of Asser.
+
+The statement of Beda, so opposed to that of Asser, I explain by supposing
+that it arose out of an inaccurate inference drawn from the similarity of
+the names of the Isle of Wight and the peninsula of Jutland, since we have
+seen that in both cases, there was a similar confusion between the
+syllables Jut- and Vit-. This is an error into which even a careful writer
+might fall. That Beda had no authentic historical accounts of the conquest
+of Britain, we know from his own statements in the Preface to his
+Ecclesiastical History,[14] and that he partially tried to make up for the
+want of them by inference is exceedingly likely. If so, what would be more
+natural than for him to conclude that Jutes as well as Angles helped to
+subdue the country. The fact itself was probable; besides which he saw at
+one and the same time, in England _Vitae_ (called also _Jutae_), in
+immediate contact with _Saxons_,[26] and on the continent _Jutae_ (called
+also _Vitae_) in the neighborhood of Angles[27] and Saxons. Is it
+surprising that he should connect them?
+
+s. 13. If the inhabitants of the Isle of Wight were really _Jutes_ from
+_Jutland_, it is strange that there should be no traces of the difference
+which existed, then as now, between them and the proper Anglo-Saxons--a
+difference which was neither inconsiderable nor of a fleeting nature.
+
+The present Jutlanders are not Germans but Danes, and the Jutes of the time
+of Beda were most probably the same. Those of the 11th century were
+_certainly_ so, "Primi ad ostium Baltici Sinus in australi ripa versus nos
+_Dani, quos Juthas appellant_, usque ad Sliam lacum habitant." Adamus
+Bremensis,[15] "De Situ Daniae" c. 221. Also, "Et prima pars Daniae, quae
+Jutland dicitur, ad Egdoram[28] in Boream longitudine pretenditur ... in
+eum angulum qui Windila dicitur, ubi Jutland finem habet," c. 208.
+
+At the time of Beda they must, according to the received traditions, have
+been nearly 300 years in possession of the Isle of Wight, a locality as
+favourable for the preservation of their peculiar manners and customs as
+any in Great Britain, and a locality wherein we have no evidence of their
+ever having been disturbed. Nevertheless, neither trace nor shadow of a
+trace, either in early or modern times, has ever been discovered of their
+separate nationality and language; a fact which stands in remarkable
+contrast with the very numerous traces which the Danes of the 9th and 10th
+century left behind them as evidence of their occupancy.
+
+s. 14. The words _England_ and _English_ are derived from the _Angles_ of
+Beda. The words _Sussex_, _Essex_, _Middlesex_ and _Wessex_, from his
+_Saxons_. No objection lies against this; indeed to deny that populations
+called _Angle_ and _Saxon_ occupied _England_ and spoke the _Anglo-Saxon_
+language would display an unnecessary and unhealthy scepticism. The real
+question concerning these two words consists in the relation which the
+populations to which they were applied bore to each other. And this
+question is a difficult one. Did the Angles speak one language, whilst the
+Saxons spoke another? or did they both speak dialects of the same tongue?
+Were these dialects slightly or widely different? Can we find traces of the
+difference in any of the present provincial dialects? Are the idioms of one
+country of Angle, whilst those of another are of Saxon origin? Was the
+Angle more like the Danish language, whilst the Saxon approached the Dutch?
+None of these questions can be answered at present. They have, however,
+been asked for the sake of exhibiting the nature of the subject.
+
+s. 15. The extract from Beda requires further remarks.
+
+_The Angles of Beda._--The statement of Beda respecting the Angles, like
+his statement concerning the Jutes, reappears in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
+and in Alfred.
+
+Ethelweard[16] also adopts it:--"_Anglia vetus_ sita est inter Saxones et
+Giotos, habens oppidum capitale quod sermone Saxonico _Sleswic_ nuncupatur,
+secundum vero Danos _Hathaby_."
+
+Nevertheless, it is exceptionable and unsatisfactory; and like the previous
+one, in all probability, an incorrect inference founded upon the
+misinterpretation of a name.
+
+In the eighth century there _was_, and at the present moment there _is_, a
+portion of the duchy of Sleswick called _Anglen_ or _the corner_. It is
+really what its name denotes, a triangle of irregular shape, formed by the
+Slie, the firth of Flensborg, and a line drawn from Flensborg to Sleswick.
+It is just as Danish as the rest of the peninsula, and cannot be shown to
+have been occupied by a Germanic population at all. Its area is less than
+that of the county of Rutland, and by no means likely to have supplied such
+a population as that of the Angles of England. The fact of its being a
+desert at the time of Beda is credible; since it formed a sort of _March_
+or _Debatable Ground_ between the Saxons and Slavonians of Holstein, and
+the Danes of Jutland.
+
+Now if we suppose that the real Angles of Germany were either so reduced in
+numbers as to have become an obscure tribe, or so incorporated with other
+populations as to have lost their independent existence, we can easily see
+how the similarity of name, combined with the geographical contiguity of
+Anglen to the Saxon frontier, might mislead even so good a writer as Beda,
+into the notion that he had found the country of the _Angles_ in the
+_Angulus_ (Anglen) of Sleswick.
+
+The true _Angles_ were the descendants of the _Angli_ of Tacitus. Who these
+were will be investigated in ss. 47-54.
+
+s. 16. _The Saxons of Beda._--The Saxons of Beda reached from the country
+of the Old Saxons[29] on the Lippe, in Westphalia, to that of the
+Nordalbingian[30] Saxons between the Elbe and Eyder; and nearly, but not
+quite, coincided with the present countries of Hanover, Oldenburg,
+Westphalia, and part of Holstein. This we may call the _Saxon_, or (as
+reasons will be given for considering that it nearly coincided with the
+country of the Angles) the _Anglo-Saxon_ area.
+
+s. 17. _River-system and sea-board of the Anglo-Saxon area._--As the
+invasion of England took place by sea, we must expect to find in the
+invaders a maritime population. This leads to the consideration of the
+physical character of that part of Germany which they occupied. And here
+comes a remarkable and unexpected fact. The line of coast between the Rhine
+and Elbe, the line which in reasoning _a priori_, we should fix upon as the
+most likely tract for the bold seamen who wrested so large an island as
+Great Britain from its original occupants (changing it from _Britain_ to
+_England_), to have proceeded from, is _not_ the country of the
+Anglo-Saxons. On the contrary, it is the country of a similar but different
+section of the Germanic population, a section which has not received the
+attention from the English historian which it deserves. The country in
+question is the area of--
+
+s. 18. _The Frisians._--At the present moment the language of the Dutch
+province of Friesland is materially different from that of the other parts
+of the kingdom of Holland. In other words it is not Dutch. Neither is it
+German--although, of course, it resembles both languages. On the other
+hand, it is more like the English than any other language or dialect in
+Germany is.
+
+It is a language of considerable antiquity, and although at present it is
+spoken by the country-people only, it possesses a considerable literature.
+There is the _Middle_ Frisian of Gysbert Japicx,[17] and the _Old_ Frisian
+of the Frisian Laws.[18] The older the specimen of the Frisian language
+the more closely does it show its affinity to the English; hence the
+earliest Frisian and the Anglo-Saxon are exceedingly alike. Nevertheless
+they differ.
+
+s. 19. The Frisian was once spoken over a far greater area than at present.
+It was the original language of almost all Holland. It was the language of
+East Friesland to a late period. It was, probably, the language of the
+ancient Chauci. At the present time (besides Friesland) it survives in
+Heligoland, in the islands between the Ems and Weser, in part of Sleswick,
+and in a few localities in Oldenburg and Westphalia.
+
+Hence it is probable that the original Frisian, extending to an uncertain
+and irregular distance inland, lay between the Saxons and the sea, and
+stretched from the Zuyder Zee to the Elbe; a fact which would leave to the
+latter nation the lower Elbe and the Weser as their water-system: the
+extent to which they were in direct contact with the ocean being less than
+we are prepared to expect from their subsequent history.
+
+On the other hand the _a priori_ probabilities of there being Frisians as
+well as Anglo-Saxons amongst the conquerors of Great Britain are
+considerable.--See ss. 55, 56.
+
+s. 20. The Anglo-Saxon area coincided--
+
+1. _Politically._--With the kingdom of Hanover, the duchy of Oldenburg, and
+parts of Westphalia and Holstein.
+
+2. _Physically._--With the basin of the Weser.
+
+It was _certainly_ from the Anglo-Saxon, and _probably_ from a part of the
+Frisian area that Great Britain was first invaded.
+
+This is as much as it is safe to say at present. The preceding chapter
+investigated the _date_ of the Germanic migration into Britain; the present
+has determined the _area_ from which it went forth.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER III.
+
+OF THE DIALECTS OF THE SAXON AREA, AND OF THE SO-CALLED OLD SAXON.
+
+s. 21. The area occupied by the Saxons of Germany has been investigated;
+and it now remains to ask, how far the language of the occupants was
+absolutely identical throughout, or how far it fell into dialects or
+sub-dialects.
+
+There were at least _two_ divisions of the Saxon; (1st) the Saxon of which
+the extant specimens are of English origin, and (2nd), the Saxon of which
+the extant specimens are of Continental origin. We will call these at
+present the Saxon of England, and the Saxon of the Continent.
+
+s. 22. Respecting the Saxon of England and the Saxon of the Continent,
+there is good reason for believing that the _first_ was spoken in the
+_northern_, the _second_ in the _southern_ portion of the Saxon area, i.e.,
+the one in Hanover and the other in Westphalia, the probable boundaries
+between them being the line of highlands between Osnaburg and Paderborn.
+
+s. 23. Respecting the Saxon of England and the Saxon of the Continent,
+there is good reason for believing that, whilst the _former_ was the
+mother-tongue of the Angles and the conquerors of England, the _latter_ was
+that of the Cherusci of Arminius, the conquerors and the annihilators of
+the legions of Varus.[19]
+
+s. 24. Respecting the Saxon of England and the Saxon of the Continent, it
+is a fact that, whilst we have a full literature in the former, we have but
+fragmentary specimens of the latter--these being chiefly the following: (1)
+the Heliand,[20] (2) Hildubrand and Hathubrant,[21] (3) the Carolinian
+Psalms.[22]
+
+s. 25. The preceding points have been predicated respecting the difference
+between the two ascertained Saxon dialects, for the sake of preparing the
+reader for the names by which they are known.
+
+ THE SAXON OF THE CONTINENT THE SAXON OF ENGLAND
+ MAY BE CALLED MAY BE CALLED
+
+ 1. Continental Saxon. Insular Saxon.
+ 2. German Saxon. English Saxon.
+ 3. Westphalian Saxon. Hanoverian Saxon.
+ 4. South Saxon. North Saxon.
+ 5. Cheruscan Saxon. Angle Saxon.
+ 6. Saxon of the Heliand. Saxon of Beowulf.[23]
+
+s. 26. The Saxon of England _is_ called Anglo-Saxon; a term against which
+no exception can be raised.
+
+s. 27. The Saxon of the Continent _used_ to be called _Dano_-Saxon, and
+_is_ called _Old_ Saxon.
+
+s. 28. _Why called Dano-Saxon._--When the poem called _Heliand_ was first
+discovered in an English library, the difference in language between it and
+the common Anglo-Saxon composition was accounted for by the assumption of a
+_Danish_ intermixture.
+
+s. 29. _Why called _Old_ Saxon._ When the Continental origin of the
+_Heliand_ was recognised, the language was called _Old_ Saxon, because it
+represented the Saxon of the mother-country, the natives of which were
+called _Old_ Saxons by the _Anglo_-Saxons themselves. Still the term is
+exceptionable; as the Saxon of the Heliand is probably a _sister_-dialect
+of the _Anglo_-Saxon, rather than the _Anglo_-Saxon itself in a Continental
+locality. Exceptionable, however, as it is, it will be employed.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER IV.
+
+AFFINITIES OF THE ENGLISH WITH THE LANGUAGES OF GERMANY AND SCANDINAVIA.
+
+s. 30. Over and above those languages of Germany and Holland which were
+akin to the dialects of the Anglo-Saxons, cognate languages were spoken in
+Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, and the Feroe isles, i.e., in
+Scandinavia.
+
+s. 31. The general collective designation for the Germanic tongues of
+Germany and Holland, and for the Scandinavian languages of Denmark, Sweden,
+Norway, Iceland, and the Feroe Isles, is taken from the name of those
+German tribes who, during the decline of the Roman Empire, were best known
+to the Romans as the _Goths_; the term _Gothic_ for the Scandinavian and
+Germanic languages, collectively, being both current and convenient.
+
+s. 32. Of this great _stock_ of languages the Scandinavian is one _branch_;
+the Germanic, called also Teutonic, another.
+
+s. 33. The Scandinavian branch of the Gothic stock comprehends, 1. The
+dialects of Scandinavia Proper, i.e., of Norway and Sweden; 2. of the
+Danish isles and Jutland; 3. of Iceland; 4. of the Feroe Isles.
+
+s. 34. The Teutonic branch falls into three divisions:--
+
+ 1. The Moeso-Gothic.
+ 2. The High Germanic.
+ 3. The Low Germanic.
+
+s. 35. It is in the Moeso-Gothic that the most ancient specimen of any
+Gothic tongue has been preserved. It is also the Moeso-Gothic that was
+spoken by the conquerors of ancient Rome; by the subjects of Hermanric,
+Alaric, Theodoric, Euric, Athanaric, and Totila.
+
+In the reign of Valens, when pressed by intestine wars, and by the
+movements of the Huns, the Goths were assisted by that emperor, and settled
+in the Roman province of Moesia.
+
+Furthermore, they were converted to Christianity; and the Bible was
+translated into their language by their Bishop Ulphilas.
+
+Fragments of this translation, chiefly from the Gospels, have come down to
+the present time; and the Bible translation of the Arian Bishop Ulphilas,
+in the language of the Goths of Moesia, during the reign of Valens,
+exhibits the earliest sample of any Gothic tongue.
+
+s. 36. The Old High German, called also Francic[24] and Alemannic,[25]
+was spoken in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries, in Suabia, Bavaria,
+and Franconia.
+
+The Middle High German ranges from the thirteenth century to the
+Reformation.
+
+s. 37. The low Germanic division, to which the Anglo-Saxon belongs, is
+currently said to comprise six languages, or rather four languages in
+different stages.
+
+ 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.
+
+s. 38. _The Frisian and Dutch._--It is a current statement that the Old
+Frisian bears the same relation to the Modern Dutch of Holland that the
+Anglo-Saxon does to the English.
+
+The truer view of the question is as follows:--
+
+1. That a single language, spoken in two dialects, was originally common to
+both Holland and Friesland.
+
+2. That from the northern of these dialects we have the Modern Frisian of
+Friesland.
+
+3. From the southern, the Modern Dutch of Holland.
+
+The reason of this refinement is as follows:--
+
+The Modern Dutch has certain grammatical forms _older_ than those of the
+old Frisian; e.g., the Dutch infinitives and the Dutch weak substantives,
+in their oblique cases, end in -en; those of the Old Frisian in -a: the
+form in -en being the older.
+
+The true Frisian is spoken in few and isolated localities. There is--
+
+1. The Frisian of the Dutch state called Friesland.
+
+2. The Frisian of the parish of Saterland, in Westphalia.
+
+3. The Frisian of Heligoland.
+
+4. The North Frisian, spoken in a few villages of Sleswick. One of the
+characters of the North Frisian is the possession of a dual number.
+
+In respect to its stages, we have the Old Frisian of the Asega-bog, the
+Middle Frisian of Gysbert Japicx,[31] and the Modern Frisian of the present
+Frieslanders, Westphalians, and Heligolanders.
+
+s. 39. _The Low German and Platt-Deutsch._--The words _Low-German_ are not
+only lax in their application, but they are _equivocal_; since the term has
+two meanings, a _general_ meaning when it signifies a division of the
+Germanic languages, comprising English, Dutch, Anglo-Saxon, Old Saxon, and
+Frisian, and a limited one when it means the particular dialects of the
+Ems, the Weser, and the Elbe. To avoid this the dialects in question are
+conveniently called by their continental name of _Platt-Deutsch_, just as
+in England we say _Broad_ Scotch.
+
+s. 40. The most characteristic difference between the Saxon and Icelandic
+(indeed between the Teutonic and Scandinavian tongues) lies in the peculiar
+position of the definite article in the latter. In Saxon, the article
+corresponding with the modern word _the_, is _thaet_, _se_, _se['o]_, for
+the neuter, masculine, and feminine genders respectively; and these words,
+regularly declined, are _prefixed_ to the words with which they agree, just
+as is the case with the English and with the majority of languages. In
+Icelandic, however, the article instead of preceding, _follows_ its noun,
+_with which it coalesces_, having previously suffered a change in form. The
+Icelandic article corresponding to _thaet_, _se_, _se['o]_, is _hitt_,
+_hinn_, _hin_: from this the h is ejected, so that, instead of the regular
+inflection (a), we have the forms (b).
+
+ a.
+
+ _Neut._ _Masc._ _Fem._
+
+ _Sing. Nom._ Hitt Hinn Hin.
+ _Acc._ Hitt Hinn Hina.
+ _Dat._ Hinu Hinum Hinni.
+ _Gen._ Hins Hins Hinnar.
+ _Plur. Nom._ Hin Hinir Hinar.
+ _Acc._ Hin Hina Hinar.
+ _Dat._ Hinum Hinum Hinum.
+ _Gen._ Hinna Hinna Hinna.
+
+ b.
+
+ _Sing. Nom._ -it -inn -in.
+ _Acc._ -it -inn -ina (-na).
+ _Dat._ -nu -num -inni (-nni).
+ _Gen._ -ins -ins -innar (-nnar).
+ _Plur. Nom._ -in -nir -nar.
+ _Acc._ -in -na -nar.
+ _Dat._ -num -num -num.
+ _Gen._ -nna -nna -nna.
+
+Whence, as an affix, in composition,
+
+ _Neut._ _Masc._ _Fem._
+
+ _Sing. Nom._ Augat Boginn T['u]ngan.
+ _Acc._ Augat Boginn T['u]nguna.
+ _Dat._ Auganu Boganum T['u]ngunni.
+ _Gen._ Augans Bogans T['u]ngunnar.
+ _Plur. Nom._ Augun Bogarnir T['u]ngurnar.
+ _Acc._ Augun Bogana T['u]ngurnar.
+ _Dat._ Augunum Bogunum T['u]ngunum.
+ _Gen._ Augnanna Boganna T['u]ngnanna.
+
+In the Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish this peculiarity in the position of
+the definite article is preserved. Its origin, however, is concealed; and
+an accidental identity with the indefinite article has led to false notions
+respecting its nature. In the languages in point the i is changed into e,
+so that what in Icelandic is it and in, is in Danish et and en. _En_,
+however, as a separate word, is the numeral _one_, and also the indefinite
+article _a_; whilst in the neuter gender it is _et_--en sol, _a sun_; et
+bord, _a table_: solon, _the sun_; bordet, _the table_. From modern forms
+like those just quoted, it has been imagined that the definite is merely
+the indefinite article transposed. This it is not.
+
+To apply an expression of Mr. Cobbet's, _en_ = _a_, and -en = _the_, are
+_the same combination of letters, but not the same word_.
+
+s. 41. Another characteristic of the Scandinavian language is the
+possession of a _passive_ form, or a _passive_ voice, ending in -st:--_ek_,
+_thu_, _hann brennist_ = _I am_, _thou art_, _he is burnt_; _ver brennumst_
+= _we are burnt_; _th['e]r brennizt_ = _ye are burnt_; _their brennast_ =
+_they are burnt_. Past tense, _ek_, _thu_, _hann brendist_; _ver
+brendumst_, _th['e]r brenduzt_, _their brendust_. Imperat.: _brenstu_ = _be
+thou burnt_. Infinit.: _brennast_ = _to be burnt_.
+
+In the modern Danish and Swedish, the passive is still preserved, but
+without the final t. In the _older_ stages of Icelandic, on the other hand,
+the termination was not -st but -sc; which -sc grew out of the reflective
+pronoun _sik_. With these phenomena the Scandinavian languages give us the
+evolution and development of a passive voice; wherein we have the following
+series of changes:--1. the reflective pronoun coalesces with the verb,
+whilst the sense changes from that of a reflective to that of a middle
+verb; 2. the c changes to t, whilst the middle sense passes into a passive
+one; 3. t is dropped from the end of the word, and the expression that was
+once reflective then becomes strictly passive.
+
+Now the Saxons have no passive voice at all. That they should have one
+_originating_ like that of the Scandinavians was impossible, inasmuch as
+they had no reflective pronoun, and, consequently, nothing to evolve it
+from.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER V.
+
+ANALYSIS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.--GERMANIC ELEMENTS.--THE ANGLES.
+
+s. 42. The language of England has been formed out of three 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.
+
+s. 43. Each of these requires a special analysis, but that of the second
+will be taken first, and form the contents of the present chapter.
+
+All that we have at present learned concerning the Germanic invaders of
+England, is the geographical area which they originally occupied. How far,
+however, it was simple Saxons who conquered England single-handed, or how
+far the particular Saxon Germans were portions of a complex population,
+requires further investigation. Were the Saxons one division of the German
+population, whilst the Angles were another? or were the Angles a section of
+the Saxons, so that the latter was a generic term including the former?
+Again, although the Saxon invasion may be the one which has had the
+greatest influence, and drawn the most attention, why may there not have
+been separate and independent migrations, the effects and record of which
+have, in the lapse of time, become fused with those of the more important
+divisions?
+
+s. 44. _The Angles; who were they? and what was their relation to the
+Saxons?_--The first answer to this question embodies a great fact in the
+way of internal evidence, viz., that they were the people from whom
+_England_ derives the name it bears = _Angle land_, i.e., _land of the
+Angles_. Our language too is _English_, i.e., _Angle_. Whatever, then, they
+may have been on the Continent, they were a leading section of the invaders
+here. Why then has their position in our inquiries been hitherto so
+subordinate to that of the Saxons? It is because their importance and
+preponderance are not so manifest in Germany as we infer them to have been
+in Britain. Nay more, their historical place amongst the nations of
+Germany, is both insignificant and uncertain; indeed, it will be seen from
+the sequel, that _in and of themselves_ we know next to nothing about them,
+knowing them only in their _relations_, i.e., to ourselves and to the
+Saxons.
+
+s. 45. Although they are the section of the immigration which gave the name
+to England, and, as such, the preponderating element in the eyes of the
+present _English_, they were not so in the eyes of the original British;
+who neither knew at the time of the Conquest, nor know now, of any other
+name for their German enemies but _Saxon_. And _Saxon_ is the name by which
+the present English are known to the Welsh, Armorican, and Gaelic Celts.
+
+ Welsh _Saxon_.
+ Armorican _Soson_.
+ Gaelic _Sassenach_.
+
+s. 46. Although they are the section of the immigration which gave the name
+to _England_, &c., they were quite as little Angles as Saxons in the eyes
+of foreign cotemporary writers; since the expression _Saxoniae
+transmarinae_, occurs as applied to England.
+
+s. 47. _Who were the Angles?_--Although they are the section of the
+immigration which gave the name to _England_, &c., the notices of them as
+Germans in Germany, are extremely limited.
+
+_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[^a] cum veneratione prosequitur. Laeti tunc
+dies, festa loca, quaecumque adventu hospitioque dignatur. Non bella
+ineunt, non arma sumunt, clausum omne ferrum; pax et quies tunc tant[`u]m
+nota, tunc tant[`u]m 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 tant[`u]m perituri vident."[32]
+
+_Extract from Ptolemy._--This connects the Angles with the _Suevi_, and
+_Langobardi_, and places them on the Middle Elbe.--[Greek: Entos kai
+mesogeion ethnon megista men esti to te ton Souebon ton Angeilon, hoi eisin
+anatolikoteroi ton Langobardon, anateinontes pros tas arktous mechri ton
+meson tou Albios potamou].
+
+_Extract from Procopius._--For this see s. 55.
+
+_Heading of a law referred to the age of Charlemagne._--This connects them
+with the Werini (Varni) and the Thuringians--"Incipit lex _Angliorum_ et
+_Werinorum_ hoc est _Thuringorum_."
+
+s. 48. These notices agree in giving the Angles a _German_ locality, and in
+connecting them ethnologically, and philologically with the _Germans_ of
+Germany. And such was, undoubtedly, the case. Nevertheless, it may be seen
+from s. 15 that a _Danish_ origin has been assigned to them.
+
+The exact Germanic affinities of the Angles are, how ever, difficult to
+ascertain, since the tribes with which they are classed are differently
+classed. This we shall see by asking the following questions:--
+
+s. 49. What were the _Langobardi_, with whom the Angles were connected by
+Tacitus? The most important fact to be known concerning them is, that the
+general opinion is in favour of their having belonged to either the
+_High_-German, or Moeso-Gothic division, rather than to the _Low_.
+
+s. 50. What were the _Suevi_, with whom the Angles were connected by
+Tacitus? The most important fact to be known concerning them is, that the
+general opinion is in favour of their having belonged to either the
+_High_-German or Moeso-Gothic division rather than to the _Low_.
+
+s. 51. What were the _Werini_, with whom the Angles were connected in the
+_Leges Anglorum et Werinorum_? Without having any particular _data_ for
+connecting the Werini (Varni, [Greek: Ouarnoi]) with either the
+High-German, or the Moeso-Gothic divisions, there are certain facts in
+favour of their being _Slavonic_.
+
+s. 52. What were the _Thuringians_, with whom the Angles are connected in
+the _Leges Anglorum_? Germanic in locality, and most probably allied to the
+Goths of Moesia in language. If not, High-Germans.
+
+s. 53. Of the Reudigni, Eudoses, Nuithones, Suardones, and Aviones, too
+little is known in detail to make the details an inquiry of importance.
+
+s. 54. The reader has now got a general view of the extent to which the
+position of the Angles, as a German tribe, is complicated by conflicting
+statements; statements which connect them with (probably) _High_-German
+Thuringians, Suevi, and Langobardi, and with (probably) _Slavonic_ Werini,
+or Varni; whereas in England, they are scarcely distinguishable from the
+_Low_-German Saxons. In the present state of our knowledge, the only safe
+fact seems to be, that of the common relation of both _Angles_ and Saxons
+to the present _English_ of England.
+
+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.
+
+s. 55. The Frisians have been mentioned as a Germanic population _likely_
+to have joined in the invasion of Britain; the _presumption_ in favor of
+their having done so arising from their geographical position.
+
+There is, however, something more than mere presumption upon this point.
+
+Archbishop Usher, amongst the earlier historians, and Mr. Kemble amongst
+those of the present day, as well as other intermediate investigators, have
+drawn attention to certain important notices of them.
+
+The main facts bearing upon this question are the following:--
+
+1. Hengist, according to some traditions, was a Frisian hero.
+
+2. Procopius wrote as follows:--[Greek: Brittian de ten neson ethne tria
+poluanthropotata echousi, basileus te eis auton hekastoi ephesteken,
+onomata de keitai tois ethnesi toutois Angiloi te kai Phrissones kai hoi
+tei nesoi homonumoi Brittones. Tosaute de he tonde ton ethnon poluanthropia
+phainetai ousa hoste ana pan etos kata pollous enthende metanistamenoi xun
+gunaixi kai paisin es Phrangous chorousin].--Procop. B. G. iv. 20.
+
+3. In the Saxon Chronicle we find the following passage:--"That same year,
+the armies from among the East-Anglians, and from among the
+North-Humbrians, harassed the land of the West-Saxons chiefly, most of all
+by their 'aescs,' which they had built many years before. Then king Alfred
+commanded long ships to be built to oppose the aescs; they were full-nigh
+twice as long as the others; some had sixty oars, and some had more; they
+were both swifter and steadier, and also higher than the others. They were
+shapen neither like the _Frisian_ nor the Danish, but so as it seemed to
+him that they would be most efficient. Then some time in the same year,
+there came six ships to Wight, and there did much harm, as well as in
+Devon, and elsewhere along the sea coast. Then the king commanded nine of
+the new ships to go thither, and they obstructed their passage from the
+port towards the outer sea. Then went they with three of their ships out
+against them; and three lay in the upper part of the port in the dry; the
+men were gone from them ashore. Then took they two of the three ships at
+the outer part of the port, and killed the men, and the other ship escaped;
+in that also the men were killed except five; they got away because the
+other ships were aground. They also were aground very disadvantageously,
+three lay aground on that side of the deep on which the Danish ships were
+aground, and all the rest upon the other side, so that no one of them could
+get to the others. But when, the water had ebbed many furlongs from the
+ships, then the Danish men went from their three ships to the other three
+which were left by the tide on their side, and then they there fought
+against them. There was slain Lucumon the king's reeve, and Wulfheard the
+_Frisian_, and Aebbe the _Frisian_, and Aethelhere the _Frisian_, and
+Aethelferth the king's 'geneat,' and of all the men, _Frisians_ and
+English, seventy-two; and of the Danish men one hundred and twenty."
+
+s. 56. I believe then, that, so far from the current accounts being
+absolutely correct, in respect to the Germanic elements of the English
+population, the _Jutes_, as mentioned by Beda, formed _no_ part of it,
+whilst the _Frisians_, _not_ so mentioned, _were a real constituent
+therein_; besides which, there may, very easily, have been other Germanic
+tribes, though in smaller proportions.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER VI.
+
+THE CELTIC STOCK OF LANGUAGES, AND THEIR RELATIONS TO THE ENGLISH.
+
+s. 57. The languages of Great Britain at the invasion of Julius Caesar were
+of the Celtic stock.
+
+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.
+
+s. 58. Taken altogether the Celtic tongues form a very remarkable class. As
+compared with those of the Gothic stock they are marked by the following
+characteristics:--
+
+_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
+the Celtic tongues are pre-eminently uninflected in the way of
+_declension_.
+
+s. 59. The _agglutinate character of their verbal inflections_.--In Welsh
+the pronouns for _we_, _ye_, and _they_, are _ni_, _chwyi_, and _hwynt_
+_respectively_. In Welsh also the root = _love_ is _car_. As conjugated in
+the plural number this is--
+
+ car-wn = am-amus.
+ car-ych = am-atis.
+ car-ant = am-ant.
+
+Now the -wn, -ych, and -ant, of the persons of the verbs are the personal
+pronouns, so that the inflection is really a verb and a pronoun in a state
+of _agglutination_; i.e., in a state where the original separate existence
+of the two sorts of words is still manifest. This is probably the case with
+languages in general. The Celtic, however, has the peculiarity of
+exhibiting it in an unmistakable manner; showing, as it were, an inflection
+in the process of formation, and (as such) exhibiting an early stage of
+language.
+
+s. 60. _The system of initial mutations._--The Celtic, as has been seen, is
+deficient in the ordinary means of expressing case. How does it make up for
+this? Even thus. The noun changes its initial letter according to its
+relation to the other words of the sentence. Of course this is subject to
+rule. As, however, I am only writing for the sake of illustrating in a
+general way the peculiarities of the Celtic tongues, the following table,
+from Prichard's "Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations," is sufficient.
+
+ C[^a]r, _a kinsman_.
+
+ 1. _form_, C[^a]r agos, _a near kinsman_.
+ 2. Ei g[^a]r, _his kinsman_.
+ 3. Ei ch[^a]r, _her kinsman_.
+ 4. Vy ngh[^a]r, _my kinsman_.
+
+ T[^a]d, _a father_.
+
+ 1. _form_, T[^a]d y plentyn, _the child's father_.
+ 2. Ei d[^a]d, _his father_.
+ 3. Ei th[^a]d, _her father_.
+ 4. Vy nh[^a]d, _my father_.
+
+ Pen, _a head_.
+
+ 1. _form_, Pen gwr, _the head of a man_.
+ 2. Ei ben, _his head_.
+ 3. Ei phen, _her head_.
+ 4. Vy mhen, _my head_.
+
+ Gwas, _a servant_.
+
+ 1. _form_, Gw[^a]s fydhlon, _a faithful servant_.
+ 2. Ei w[^a]s, _his servant_.
+ 3. Vy ngwas, _my servant_.
+
+ Duw, _a god_.
+
+ 1. _form_, Duw trugarog, _a merciful god_.
+ 2. Ei dhuw, _his god_.
+ 3. Vy nuw, _my god_.
+
+ Bara, _bread_.
+
+ 1. _form_, Bara cann, _white bread_.
+ 2. Ei vara, _his bread_.
+ 3. Vy mara, _my bread_.
+
+ Lhaw, _a hand_.
+
+ 1. _form_, Lhaw wenn, _a white hand_.
+ 2. Ei law, _his hand_.
+
+ Mam, _a mother_.
+
+ 1. _form_, Mam dirion, _a tender mother_.
+ 2. Ei vam, _his mother_.
+
+ Rhwyd, _a net_.
+
+ 1. _form_, Rhwyd lawn, _a full net_.
+ 2. Ei rwyd, _his net_.
+
+ From the Erse.
+
+ S['u]il, _an eye_.
+
+ 1. _form_, S['u]il.
+ 2. A h['u]il, his eye.
+
+ Sl['a]inte, _health_.
+
+ 2. _form_, Do hl['a]inte, _your health_.
+
+s. 61. The Celtic tongues have lately received especial illustration from
+the researches of Mr. Garnett. Amongst others, the two following points are
+particularly investigated by him:--
+
+1. The affinities of the ancient language of Gaul.
+
+2. The affinities of the Pictish language or dialect.
+
+s. 62. _The ancient language of Gaul Cambrian._--The evidence in favour of
+the ancient language of Gaul being Cambrian rather than Gaelic, lies in the
+following facts:--
+
+The old Gallic glosses are more Welsh than Gaelic.
+
+a. _Petorritum_ = _a four-wheeled carriage_, from the Welsh, _peder_ =
+_four_, and _rhod_ = _a wheel_. The Gaelic 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.
+
+s. 63. _The Pictish most probably Cambrian._--The evidence in favour of the
+Pictish being Cambrian rather than Gaelic lies in the following facts:
+
+a. When St. Columbanus preached, whose mother-tongue was Irish Gaelic, he
+used an interpreter. This shows the _difference_ between the Pict and
+Gaelic. What follows shows the affinity between the Pict and Welsh.
+
+b. A manuscript in the Colbertine library contains a list of Pictish kings
+from the fifth century downwards. These names are more Welsh than Gaelic.
+_Taran_ = _thunder_ in Welsh. _Uven_ is the Welsh _Owen_. The first
+syllable in _Talorg_ ( = _forehead_) is the _tal_ in _Talhaiarn_ = _iron
+forehead_, _Taliessin_ = _splendid forehead_, Welsh names. _Wrgust_ is
+nearer to the Welsh _Gwrgust_ than to the Irish _Fergus_. Finally, _Drust_,
+_Drostan_, _Wrad_, _Necton_, closely resemble the Welsh _Trwst_, _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 Beda, _peann fahel_. This means _caput
+valli_, and is the name for the eastern termination of the Vallum of
+Antoninus. Herein _pen_ is unequivocally Welsh, meaning _head_. It is an
+impossible form in Gaelic. _Fal_, on the other hand, is apparently Gaelic,
+the Welsh for a _rampart_ being _gwall_. _Fal_, however, occurs in Welsh
+also, and means _inclosure_.
+
+The evidence just indicated is rendered nearly conclusive by an
+interpolation, apparently of the twelfth century, of the Durham MS. of
+Nennius, whereby it is stated that the spot in question was called in
+Gaelic _Cenail_. Now Cenail is the modern name _Kinneil_, and it is also a
+Gaelic translation of the Pict _pen val_, since _cean_ is the Gaelic for
+_head_, and _fhail_ for _rampart_ or _wall_. If the older form were Gaelic,
+the substitution, or translation, would have been superfluous.
+
+d. The name of the _Ochil Hills_ in Perthshire is better explained from the
+Pict _uchel_ = _high_, than from the Gaelic _uasal_.
+
+e. Bryneich, the British form of the province Bernicia, is better explained
+by the Welsh _bryn_ = _ridge_ (_hilly country_), than by any word in
+Gaelic.--Garnett, in "Transactions of Philological Society."
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER VII.
+
+THE ANGLO-NORMAN, AND THE LANGUAGES OF THE CLASSICAL STOCK.
+
+s. 64. The languages of Greece and Rome belong to one and the same stock.
+
+The Greek and its dialects, both ancient and modern, constitute the Greek
+of the Classical stock.
+
+The Latin in all its dialects, the old Italian languages allied to it, and
+the modern tongues derived from the Roman, constitute the Latin branch of
+the Classical stock.
+
+Now, although the Greek dialects are of only secondary importance in the
+illustration of the history of the English language, the Latin elements
+require a special consideration.
+
+This is because the Norman French, introduced into England by the battle of
+Hastings, is a language derived from the Roman, and consequently a language
+of the Latin branch of the Classical stock.
+
+s. 65. 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
+Kamskatka.
+
+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.
+
+2. To Gaul, or France, where it overlaid or was engrafted on languages of
+the Celtic stock.
+
+3. To Dacia and Pannonia where it overlaid or was engrafted on a language
+the stock whereof is undetermined, but which was, probably, Sarmatian. The
+introduction of the Latin into Dacia and Pannonia took place in the time of
+Trajan.
+
+s. 66. From these different introductions of the Latin into different
+countries we have the following modern languages--1st Italian, 2nd Spanish
+and Portuguese, 3rd French, 4th Wallachian; to which must be added a 5th,
+the Romanese of part of Switzerland.
+
+_Specimen of the Romanese._
+
+ _Luke_ xv. 11.
+
+ 11. Uen Hum veva dus Filgs:
+
+ 12. Ad ilg juveu da quels schet alg Bab, "Bab mi dai la Part de la
+ Rauba c' aud' [`a] mi:" ad el parch[`e] or ad els la Rauba.
+
+ 13. A bucca bears Gis suenter, cur ilg Filg juven vet tut mess ansemel,
+ scha til[`a] 'l navent en uenna Terra dalunsch: a lou sfiget el tut sia
+ Rauba cun viver senza spargn.
+
+ 14. A cur el vet tut sfaig, scha vangit ei en quella Terra uen grond
+ Fumaz: ad el antschavet a ver basengs.
+
+ 15. Ad el m[`a], [`a]: sa plid[`e] enn uen Burgeis da quella Terra; a
+ quel ilg tarmatet or sin s[^e]s Beins a parchirar ils Porcs.
+
+ 16. Ad el grigiava dad amplanir sieu Venter cun las Criscas ch' ils
+ Porcs malgiavan; mo nagin lgi deva.
+
+ 17. Mo el m[`a] en sasez a schet: "Quonts Fumelgs da mieu Bab han
+ budonza da Pann, a jou miei d' fom!"
+
+ 18. "Jou vi lavar si, ad ir tier mieu Bab, e vi gir a lgi: 'Bab, jou
+ hai faig puccau ancunter ilg Tschiel ad avont tei;
+
+ 19. "'A sunt bucca pli vangonts da vangir numnaus tieu Filg; fai mei
+ esser sco uen da tes Fumelgs.'"
+
+_Specimen of the Wallachian._
+
+ _Luke_ xv. 11.
+
+ 11. Un om evea do[)i] fec or[)i].
+
+ 12. Shi a zis c'el ma[)i] tinr din e[)i] tatlu[)i] su: tat, dm[)i]
+ partea c'e mi se kade de avucie: shi de a imprcit lor avuciea.
+
+ 13. Shi nu dup multe zile, adunint toate fec orul c el ma[)i] tinr, s'a
+ dus intr 'o car departe, shi akolo a rsipit toat avuciea ca, viecuind
+ intr dezm[)i]erdr[)i].
+
+ 14. Shi keltuind el toate, c'a fkut foamete mare intr' ac'ea car: shi
+ el a inc'eput a se lipsi.
+
+ 15. Shi mergina c'a lipit de unul din lkuitori[)i] cri[)i] ac'eia: si
+ 'l a trimis pre el la earinide sale c pask porc'i[)i].
+
+ 16. Shi doria c 'sh[)i] sature pinctec'ele s[)u] de roshkobele c'e
+ minka porc'i[)i]! shi nimin[)i] nu [)i] da lu[)i].
+
+ 17. Iar viind intru sine, a zis; kic[)i] argac[)i] a[)i] tatlu[)i]
+ mie[)u] sint indestulac[)i] de pi[)i]ne, iar e[)u] p[)i]ei[)u] de
+ foame.
+
+ 18. Skula-m-vio[)u], shi m' voi[)u] duc'e la tata mie[)u], shi vio[)u]
+ zic'e lui:
+
+ 19. Tat, greshit-am la c'er shi inaintea ta, shi nu mai sint vrednik a
+ m kema fiul t[)u]; fm ka pre unul din argaci[)i] ti.
+
+s. 67. Such is the _general_ view of the languages derived from the Latin,
+i.e., of the languages of the Latin branch of the Classical stock.
+
+The French requires to be more minutely exhibited.
+
+Between the provincial French of the north and the provincial French of the
+south, there is a difference, at the present day, at least of dialect, and
+perhaps of language. This is shown by the following specimens: the first
+from the canton of Arras, on the confines of Flanders; the second from the
+department of Var, in Provence. The date of each is A.D. 1807.
+
+ I.
+
+ _Luke_ xv. 11.
+
+ 11. Ain homme avoueait deeux garch['e]ons.
+
+ 12. L'pus jone dit a sain p[`e]re, "Main p[`e]re, baill['e] m'cheu
+ qu[^i] doueo me 'r v'nir ed vous bien," et lue p[`e]re leu partit sain
+ bien.
+
+ 13. Ain n'sais yur, tro, quate, ch['e]on jours apr[`e]s l'pus ti[`o]
+ d'cn['e]s d['e]eux ['e]f['e]ans [^o]yant r'cu['e]ll['e] tout s'n'
+ h['e]ritt'main, s'ot' ainvoye dains n[^a]in pahis gramain loueon, d['u]
+ qu'il ['e]chilla tout s'n' argint ain fageant l'braingand dains ch['e]s
+ cabarets.
+
+ 14. Abord qu'il o eu tout bu, tout mi['e] et tout dr['e]l['e], il o
+ v'nu adonc dains ch' pahis lo ainn' famaine cruueelle, et i
+ c'mainchonait d'avoir fon-ye d' pon-ye (i.e. faim de pain).
+
+ II.
+
+ THE SAME.
+
+ 11. Un hom['e] avi['e] dous enfans.
+
+ 12. Lou plus pichoun digu['e]t a son paeir['e], "Moun paeir['e], dounas
+ mi ce qu[`e] mi reven de vouastr['e] ben;" lou pair['e] faguet lou
+ partag['e] de tout ce que pouss['e]davo.
+
+ 13. Paou do jours apr[`e]s, lou pichoun vend['e]t tout se qu[`e] soun
+ paeir['e] li avi['e] desamparat, et s'en an['e]t d['i]ns un paeis
+ fourco luench, ount['e] dissip['e]t tout soun ben en debaucho.
+
+ 14. Quand agu['e]t tou arcaba, uno grosso famino arribet dins aqueou
+ paeis et, leou, si vegu['e]t reduech [`a] la derniero mis[`e]ro.
+
+Practically speaking, although in the central parts of France the northern
+and southern dialects melt into each 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, their northern tongue and the southern tongue were dealt with
+not as separate dialects, but as distinct languages--the southern being
+called Provencal, 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 Provencal, approaches the
+dialects of Spain; the Valencian of Spain and the Catalonian of Spain being
+Provencal rather than standard Spanish or Castilian.
+
+The southern French is sometimes called the Langue d'Oc, and sometimes the
+Limousin.
+
+s. 68. The Norman-French, spoken from the Loire to the confines of
+Flanders, and called also the Langue d'Oyl, differed from the Provencal in
+(amongst others) the following circumstances.
+
+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.
+
+s. 69. It is the Norman-French that most especially bears upon the history
+of the English language.
+
+_Specimen from the Anglo-Norman poem of Charlemagne._
+
+ Un jur fu Karl['e]un al Seint-Denis muster,
+ Reout prise sa corune, en croiz seignat sun chef;
+ E ad ceinte sa esp['e]e: li pons fud d'or mer.
+ Dux i out e dermeines e baruns e chevalers.
+ Li emper[`e]res reguardet la reine sa muillers.
+ Ele fut ben corun['e]e al plus bel e as meuz.
+ Il la prist par le poin desuz un oliver,
+ De sa pleine parole la prist [`a] reisuner:
+ "Dame, v['e]istes unkes hume nul de desuz ceil
+ Tant ben s['e]ist esp['e]e no la corone el chef!
+ Uncore cunquerrei-jo citez ot mun espeez."
+ Cele ne fud pas sage, folement respondeit:
+ "Emperere," dist-ele, trop vus poez preiser.
+ "Uncore en sa-jo un ki plus se fait l['e]ger,
+ Quant il porte corune entre ses chevalers;
+ Kaunt il met sur sa teste, plus belement lui set"
+
+In the northern French we must recognise not only a Celtic and a Classical,
+but also a Gothic element: since Clovis and Charlemagne were no Frenchmen,
+but Germans. The Germanic element in French has still to be determined.
+
+In the northern French of _Normandy_ there is a second Gothic element,
+viz., a Scandinavian element. See s. 76.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+QUESTIONS.
+
+1. What are the _present_ languages of Wales, the Isle of Man, the Scotch
+Highlands, and Ireland?
+
+2. What are the _present_ languages of Germany and Holland? How are they
+related to the _present_ language of England? How to the original language
+of England?
+
+3. Enumerate the chief _supposed_ migrations from Germany to England,
+giving (when possible) the _date_ of each, the particular German tribe by
+which each was undertaken, and the parts of Great Britain where the
+different landings were made. Why do I say _supposed_ migrations?
+Criticise, in detail, the evidence by which they are supported, and state
+the extent to which it is exceptionable. Who was Beda? What were the
+sources of his information?
+
+4. Give reasons for believing the existence of Germans in England anterior
+to A.D. 447.
+
+5. Who are the present Jutlanders of Jutland? Who the inhabitants of the
+district called Anglen in Sleswick? What are the reasons for connecting
+these with the Jutes and Angles of Beda? What those for denying such a
+connection?
+
+6. What is the meaning of the termination -uarii in _Cant-uarii_ and
+_Vect-uarii_? What was the Anglo-Saxon translation of _Antiqui Saxones_,
+_Occidentales Saxones_, _Orientates Saxones_, _Meridionales Saxones_? What
+are the known variations in the form of the word _Vectis_, meaning the
+_Isle of Wight_? What those of the root Jut- as the name of the inhabitants
+of the peninsula of Jutland?
+
+7. Translate _Cantware_, _Wihtware_, into Latin. How does Alfred translate
+_Jutae_? How does the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle? What is the derivation of the
+name _Carisbrook_, a town in the Isle of Wight?
+
+8. Take exception to the opinions that _Jutes_, from _Jutland_, formed part
+of the Germanic invasion of England; or, rather, take exceptions to the
+evidence upon which that opinion is based.
+
+9. From what part of Germany were the _Angles_ derived? What is Beda's?
+what Ethelweard's statement concerning them? Who were the _Angli_ of
+Tacitus?
+
+10. What is the derivation of the word Mercia?
+
+11. Give the localities of the Old Saxons, and the Northalbingians.
+Investigate the area occupied by the Anglo-Saxons.
+
+12. What is the present population of the Dutch province of Friesland? What
+its language? What the dialects and stages of that language?
+
+13. What was the language of the Asega-bog, the Heliand, Beowulf,
+Hildubrand and Hathubrant, the Carolinian Psalms, the Gospels of Ulphilas,
+and the poems of Gysbert Japicx?
+
+14. Make a map of Ancient Germany and Scandinavia according to languages
+and dialects of those two areas. Exhibit, in a tabular form, the languages
+of the Gothic stock. Explain the meaning of the words _Gothic_, and
+_Moeso-Gothic_, and _Platt-Deutsch_.
+
+15. Analyze the Scandinavian forms _Solen_, _Bordet_, and _brennast_.
+
+16. Exhibit the difference between the _logical_ and the _historical_
+analysis of a language.
+
+17. What are the Celtic names for the _English language_?
+
+18. Enumerate the chief Germanic populations connected by ancient writers
+with the _Angles_, stating the Ethnological relations of each, and noticing
+the extent to which they coincide with those of the Angles.
+
+19. What are the reasons for believing that there is a _Frisian_ element in
+the population of England?
+
+20. Exhibit, in a tabular form, the languages and dialects of the Celtic
+stock. To which division did the Gallic of ancient Gaul, and the Pict
+belong? Support the answer by reasons. What were the relations of the Picts
+to the Gaelic inhabitants of Scotland? What to the Lowland Scotch? What to
+the Belgae?
+
+21. Explain the following words--_petorritum_, _pempedula_, _candetum_,
+_Epona_, _Nantuates_, _peann fahel_ and _Bernicia_. What inferences do you
+draw from the derivation of them?
+
+22. Exhibit, in a tabular form, the languages and dialects of the Classical
+stock.
+
+23. What is the bearing of the statements of Tacitus and other ancient
+writers respecting the following Germanic populations upon the ethnological
+relations of the Angles,--Aviones, Reudigni, Suevi, Langobardi, Frisii,
+Varini?
+
+24. What is meant by the following terms, Provencal, Langue d'Oc, Langue
+d'Oyl, Limousin, and Norman-French?
+
+25. What languages, besides the Celtic and Latin, enter into the
+composition of the French?
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+PART II.
+
+HISTORY AND ANALYSIS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+CHAPTER I.
+
+HISTORICAL AND LOGICAL ELEMENTS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
+
+s. 70. The Celtic elements of the present English fall into five classes.
+
+1. Those that are of late introduction, and cannot be called original and
+constituent parts of the language. Some of such are the words _flannel_,
+_crowd_ (a fiddle), from the Cambrian; and _kerne_ (an Irish foot-soldier),
+_galore_ (enough), _tartan_, _plaid_, &c., from the Gaelic branch.
+
+2. Those that are originally common to both the Celtic and Gothic stocks.
+Some of such are _brother_, _mother_, in Celtic _brathair_, _mathair_; the
+numerals, &c.
+
+3. Those that have come to us from the Celtic, but have come to us through
+the medium of another language. Some of such are _druid_ and _bard_, whose
+_immediate_ source is, not the Celtic but the Latin.
+
+4. Celtic elements of the Anglo-Norman, introduced into England after the
+Conquest, and occurring in that language as remains of the original Celtic
+of Gaul.
+
+5. Those that have been retained from the original Celtic of the island,
+and which form genuine constituents of our language. These fall into three
+subdivisions.
+
+a. Proper names--generally of geographical localities; as _the Thames_,
+_Kent_, &c.
+
+b. Common names retained in the provincial dialects of England, but not
+retained in the current language; as _gwethall_ = _household stuff_, and
+_gwlanen_ = _flannel_ in Herefordshire.
+
+c. Common names retained in the current language.--The following list is
+Mr. Garnett's:--
+
+ _Welsh._ _English._
+
+ Basgawd _Basket_.
+ Berfa _Barrow_.
+ Botwm _Button_.
+ Br[`a]n _Bran_.
+ Clwt _Clout_, _Rag_.
+ Crochan _Crockery_.
+ Crog _Crook_, _Hook_.
+ Cwch _Cock_, in _Cock-boat_.
+ Cwysed _Gusset_.
+ Cyl, Cyln _Kiln_ (_Kill_, provinc.).
+ Dantaeth _Dainty_.
+ Darn _Darn_.
+ Deentur _Tenter_, in _Tenterhook_.
+ Fflaim _Fleam_, _Cattle-lancet_.
+ Fflaw _Flaw_.
+ Ffynnell (air-hole) _Funnel_.
+ Gefyn (fetter) _Gyve_.
+ Greidell _Grid_ in _Gridiron_.
+ Grual _Gruel_.
+ Gwald (hem, border) _Welt_.
+ Gwiced (little door) _Wicket_.
+ Gwn _Gown_.
+ Gwyfr _Wire_.
+ Masg (stitch in netting) _Mesh_.
+ Mattog _Mattock_.
+ Mop _Mop_.
+ Rhail (fence) _Rail_.
+ Rhashg (slice) _Rasher_.
+ Rhuwch _Rug_.
+ Sawduriaw _Solder_.
+ Syth (glue) _Size_.
+ Tacl _Tackle_.
+
+s. 71. _Latin of the first period._--Of the Latin introduced by Caesar and
+his successors, the few words remaining are those that relate to military
+affairs; viz. _street_ (_strata_); -coln (as in _Lincoln_ = _Lindi
+colonia_); -cest- (as in _Gloucester_ = _glevae castra_) from _castra_. The
+Latin words introduced between the time of Caesar and Hengist may be called
+the _Latin of the first period_, or the _Latin of the Celtic period_.
+
+s. 72. _The Anglo-Saxon._--This is not noticed here, because, from being
+the staple of the present language, it is more or less the subject of the
+book throughout.
+
+s. 73. _The Danish, or Norse._--The pirates that pillaged Britain, under
+the name of Danes, were not exclusively the inhabitants of Denmark. Of the
+three Scandinavian nations, the Swedes took the least share, the Norwegians
+the greatest, in these invasions.
+
+The language of the three nations was the same; the differences being
+differences of dialect. It was that which is now spoken in Iceland, having
+been once common to Scandinavia and Denmark.
+
+The Danish that became incorporated with our language, under the reign of
+Canute and his sons, may be called the _direct_ Danish element, in
+contradistinction to the _indirect_ Danish of s. 76.
+
+The determination of the amount of Danish in English is difficult. It is
+not difficult to prove a word _Scandinavian_; but, then, we must also show
+that it is not German as well. A few years back the current opinion was
+against the doctrine that there was much Danish in England. At present, the
+tendency is rather the other way. The following facts are from Mr.
+Garnett.--"Phil. Trans." vol. i.
+
+1. The Saxon name of the present town of _Whitby_ in Yorkshire was
+_Streoneshalch_. The present name _Whitby_, _Hvitby_, or _Whitetown_, is
+Danish.
+
+2. The Saxon name of the capital of Derbyshire was _Northweortheg_. The
+present name is Danish.
+
+3. The termination -by = _town_ is Norse.
+
+4. On a monument in Aldburgh church, Holdernesse, in the East Riding of
+Yorkshire, referred to the age of Edward the Confessor, is found the
+following inscription:--
+
+ _Ulf_ het araeran cyrice _for hanum_ and for Gunthara saula.
+ "Ulf bid rear the church for him and for the soul of Gunthar."
+
+Now, in this inscription, _Ulf_, in opposition to the Anglo-Saxon _Wulf_,
+is a Norse form; whilst _hanum_ is a Norse dative, and by no means an
+Anglo-Saxon one.--Old Norse _hanum_, Swedish _honom_.
+
+5. The use of _at_ for _to_ as the sign of the infinitive mood is Norse,
+not Saxon. It is the regular prefix in Icelandic, Danish, Swedish, and
+Feroic. It is also found in the northern dialects of the Old English, and
+in the particular dialect of Westmoreland at the present day.
+
+6. The use of _sum_ for _as_; e.g.,--_swa sum_ we forgive oure detturs.
+
+7. Isolated words in the northern dialects are Norse rather than Saxon.
+
+ _Provincial._ _Common Dialect._ _Norse._
+
+ Braid _Resemble_ Braas, _Swed._
+ Eldin _Firing_ Eld, _Dan._
+ Force _Waterfall_ Fors, _D. Swed._
+ Gar _Make_ Goera, _Swed._
+ Gill _Ravine_ Gil, _Iceland._
+ Greet _Weep_ Grata, _Iceland._
+ Ket _Carrion_ Kioed--flesh, _Dan._
+ Lait _Seek_ Lede, _Dan._
+ Lathe _Barn_ Lade, _Dan._
+ Lile _Little_ Lille, _Dan._
+
+s. 74. _Roman of the second period._--Of the Latin introduced under the
+Christianised Saxon sovereigns, many words are extant. They relate chiefly
+to ecclesiastical matters, just as the Latin of the Celtic period bore upon
+military affairs. _Mynster_, a minster, _monasterium_; _portic_, a porch,
+_porticus_; _cluster_, a cloister, _claustrum_; _munuc_, a monk,
+_monachus_; _bisceop_, a bishop, _episcopus_; _arcebisceop_, archbishop,
+_archiepiscopus_; _sanct_, a saint, _sanctus_; _profost_, a provost,
+_propositus_; _pall_, a pall, _pallium_; _calic_, a chalice, _calix_;
+_candel_, a candle, _candela_; _psalter_, a psalter, _psalterium_;
+_maesse_, a mass, _missa_; _pistel_, an epistle, _epistola_; _praedic-ian_,
+to preach, _praedicare_; _prof-ian_, to prove, _probare_.
+
+The following are the names of foreign plants and animals:--_camell_, a
+camel, _camelus_; _ylp_, elephant, _elephas_; _ficbeam_, fig-tree, _ficus_;
+_feferfuge_, feverfew, _febrifuga_; _peterselige_, parsley, _petroselinum_.
+
+Others are the names of articles of foreign origin, as _pipor_, pepper,
+_piper_; _purpur_, purple, _purpura_; _pumicstan_, pumicestone, _pumex_.
+
+This is the Latin of the second, or Saxon period.
+
+s. 75. _The Anglo-Norman element._--For practical purposes we may say that
+the French or Anglo-Norman element appeared in our language after the
+battle of Hastings, A.D. 1066.
+
+Previous, however, to that period we find notices of intercourse between
+the two countries.
+
+1. The residence in England of Louis Outremer.
+
+2. Ethelred II. married Emma, daughter of Richard Duke of Normandy, and the
+two children were sent to Normandy for education.
+
+3. Edward the Confessor is particularly stated to have encouraged French
+manners and the French language in England.
+
+4. Ingulphus of Croydon speaks of his own knowledge of French.
+
+5. Harold passed some time in Normandy.
+
+6. The French article _la_, in the term _la Drove_, occurs in a deed of
+A.D. 975.
+
+The chief Anglo-Norman elements of our language are the terms connected
+with the feudal system, the terms relating to war and chivalry, and a great
+portion of the law terms--_duke_, _count_, _baron_, _villain_, _service_,
+_chivalry_, _warrant_, _esquire_, _challenge_, _domain_, &c.
+
+s. 76. When we remember that the word _Norman_ means _man of the north_,
+that it is a _Scandinavian_, and _not a French_ word, that it originated in
+the invasions of the followers of Rollo and and other _Norwegians_, and
+that just as part of England was overrun by Pagan buccaneers called
+_Danes_, part of France was occupied by similar _Northmen_, we see the
+likelihood of certain Norse words finding their way into the French
+language, where they would be superadded to its original Celtic and Roman
+elements.
+
+The extent to which this is actually the case has only been partially
+investigated. It is certain, however, that some French words are Norse or
+Scandinavian. Such, for instance, are several _names of geographical
+localities_ either near the sea, or the river Seine, in other words, within
+that tract which was most especially occupied by the invaders. As is to be
+expected from the genius of the French language, these words are
+considerably altered in form. Thus,
+
+ NORSE. ENGLISH. FRENCH.
+ Toft Toft Tot.
+ Beck Beck Bec.
+ Flot Fleet[33] Fleur, &c.
+
+and in these shapes they appear in the Norman names _Yvetot_, _Caudebec_,
+and _Harfleur_, &c.
+
+Now any words thus introduced from the Norse of Scandinavia into the French
+of Normandy, might, by the Norman Conquest of England, be carried further,
+and so find their way into the English.
+
+In such a case, they would constitute its _indirect_ Scandinavian element.
+
+A list of these words has not been made; indeed the question requires far
+more investigation than it has met with. The names, however, of the islands
+_Guerns-ey_, _Jers-ey_, and _Aldern-ey_, are certainly of the kind in
+question--since the -ey, meaning _island_, is the same as the -ey in
+_Orkn-ey_, and is the Norse rather than the Saxon form.
+
+s. 77. _Latin of the third period._--This means the Latin which was
+introduced between the battle of Hastings and the revival of literature. It
+chiefly originated in the cloister, in the universities, and, to a certain
+extent, in the courts of law. It must be distinguished from the _indirect_
+Latin introduced as part and parcel of the Anglo-Norman. It has yet to be
+accurately analyzed.
+
+s. 78. _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, with substantives, in many cases its original inflections;
+_axis_, _axes_; _basis_, _bases_:
+
+3. Relating to objects and ideas for which the increase of the range of
+science in general has required a nomenclature.
+
+s. 79. _Greek._--Words derived _directly_ from the Greek are in the same
+predicament as the Latin of the third period--_phaenomenon_, _phaenomena_;
+_criterion_, _criteria_, &c.; words which are only _indirectly_ of Greek
+origin, being considered to belong to the language from which they were
+immediately introduced into the English. Such are _deacon_, _priest_, &c.,
+introduced through the Latin. Hence a word like _church_ proves no more in
+regard to a Greek element in English, than the word _abbot_ proves in
+respect to a Syrian one.
+
+s. 80. The Latin of the fourth period and the Greek agree in retaining, in
+many cases, original inflexions rather than adopting the English ones; in
+other words, they agree in being but _imperfectly incorporated_. The
+phaenomenon of imperfect incorporation is reducible to the following
+rules:--
+
+1. That it has a direct ratio to the date of the introduction, i.e., the
+more recent the word the more likely it is to retain its original
+inflexion.
+
+2. That it has a relation to the number of meanings belonging to the words:
+thus, when a single word has two meanings, the original inflexion expresses
+one, the English inflexion another--_genius_, _genii_, often (_spirits_),
+_geniuses_ (_men of genius_).
+
+3. That it occurs with substantives only, and that only in the expression
+of number. Thus, although the plural of substantives like _axis_ and
+_genius_ are Latin, the possessive cases are English. So also are the
+degrees of comparison for adjectives, like _circular_, and the tenses, &c.
+for verbs, like _perambulate_.
+
+s. 81. The following is a list of the chief Latin substantives introduced
+during the latter part of the fourth period; and preserving the _Latin_
+plural forms--
+
+FIRST CLASS.
+
+_Words wherein the Latin plural is the same as the Latin singular._
+
+ (a) _Sing._ _Plur._ | (b) _Sing._ _Plur._
+ Apparatus apparat-us | Caries cari-es
+ Hiatus hiat-us | Congeries congeri-es
+ Impetus impet-us | Series seri-es
+ | Species speci-es
+ | Superficies superfici-es.
+
+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
+-ae_:--
+
+ _Sing._ _Plur._ | _Sing._ _Plur._
+ Formul-a formul-ae | Nebul-a nebul-ae
+ Lamin-a lamin-ae | Scori-a scori-ae.
+ Larv-a larv-ae |
+
+(b).--_Where the singular termination -us is changed in the plural into
+-i_:--
+
+ _Sing._ _Plur._ | _Sing._ _Plur._
+ Calcul-us calcul-i | Polyp-us polyp-i
+ Coloss-us coloss-i | Radi-us radi-i
+ Convolvul-us convolvul-i | Ranuncul-us ranuncul-i
+ Foc-us foc-i | Sarcophag-us sarcophag-i
+ Geni-us geni-i | Schirr-us schirrh-i
+ Mag-us mag-i | Stimul-us stimul-i
+ Nautil-us nautil-i | Tumul-us tumul-i.
+ Oesophag-us oesophag-i |
+
+(c).--_Where the singular termination -um is changed in the plural into
+-a_:--
+
+ _Sing._ _Plur._ | _Sing._ _Plur._
+ Animalcul-um animalcul-a | Mausole-um mausole-a
+ Arcan-um arcan-a | Medi-um medi-a
+ Collyri-um collyri-a | Memorand-um memorand-a
+ Dat-um dat-a | Menstru-um menstru-a
+ Desiderat-um desiderat-a | Moment-um moment-a
+ Effluvi-um effluvi-a | Premi-um premi-a
+ Empori-um empori-a | Scholi-um scholi-a
+ Encomi-um encomi-a | Spectr-um spectr-a
+ Errat-um errat-a | Specul-um specul-a
+ Gymnasi-um gymnasi-a | Strat-um strat-a
+ Lixivi-um lixivi-a | Succedane-um succedane-a.
+ Lustr-um lustr-a |
+
+(d).--_Where the singular termination -is is changed in the plural into
+-es_:--
+
+ _Sing._ _Plur._ | _Sing._ _Plur._
+ Amanuens-is amanuens-es | Ellips-is ellips-es
+ Analys-is analys-es | Emphas-is emphas-es
+ Antithes-is antithes-es | Hypothes-is hypothes-es
+ Ax-is ax-es | Oas-is oas-es
+ Bas-is bas-es | Parenthes-is parenthes-es
+ Cris-is cris-es | Synthes-is synthes-es
+ Diaeres-is diaeres-es | Thes-is thes-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:--_
+
+ _Sing._ _Plur._
+ Apex _sounded_ apec-s apices
+ Appendix -- appendic-s appendices
+ Calix -- calic-s calices
+ Cicatrix -- cicatric-s cicatrices
+ Helix -- helic-s helices
+ Index -- indec-s indices
+ Radix -- radic-s radices
+ Vertex -- vertec-s vertices
+ Vortex -- vortec-s vortices.
+
+In all these words the c of the singular number is sounded as k; of the
+plural, as s.
+
+s. 82. The following is a list of the chief Greek substantives lately
+introduced, and preserving the _Greek_ plural forms--
+
+FIRST CLASS.
+
+_Words where the singular termination -on is changed in the plural into
+-a_:--
+
+ _Sing._ _Plur._ _Sing._ _Plur._
+ Apheli-on apheli-a Criteri-on criteri-a
+ Periheli-on periheli-a Ephemer-on ephemer-a
+ Automat-on automat-a Phaenomen-on phaenomen-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:--
+
+ _Original root._ _Plur._ _Sing._
+
+ Apsid- apsid-es apsis
+ Cantharid- cantharid-es cantharis
+ Chrysalid- chrysalid-es chrysalis
+ Ephemerid- ephemerid-es ephemeris
+ Tripod- tripod-es tripos.
+
+_Plurals in_ -a:--
+
+ _Original root._ _Plur._ _Sing._
+
+ Dogmat- dogmat-a dogma
+ Lemmat- lemmat-a lemma
+ Miasmat- miasmat-a miasma.[34]
+
+s. 83. _Miscellaneous elements._--Of miscellaneous elements we have two
+sorts; those that are incorporated in our language, and are currently
+understood (e.g., the Spanish word _sherry_, the Arabic word _alkali_, and
+the Persian word _turban_), and those that, even amongst the educated, are
+considered strangers. Of this latter kind (amongst many others) are the
+oriental words _hummum_, _kaftan_, _gul_, &c.
+
+Of the currently understood miscellaneous elements of the English language,
+the most important are from the French; some of which agree with those of
+the Latin of the fourth period, and the Greek, in preserving the _French_
+plural forms--as _beau_, _beaux_, _billets-doux_.
+
+_Italian._--Some words of Italian origin do the same; as _virtuoso_,
+_virtuosi_.
+
+_Hebrew._--The Hebrew words, _cherub_ and _seraph_ do the same; the form
+_cherub-im_, and _seraph-im_ being not only plurals but Hebrew plurals.
+
+Beyond the words derived from these five languages, none form their plural
+other than after the English method, i.e., in -s, as _waltzes_, from the
+_German_ word _waltz_.
+
+s. 84. Hence we have a measure of the extent to which a language, which,
+like the English, at one and the same time requires names for many objects,
+comes in contact with the tongues of half the world, and has moreover, a
+great power of incorporating foreign elements, derives fresh words from
+varied sources; as may be seen from the following incomplete notice of the
+languages which have, in different degrees, supplied it with new terms.
+
+_Arabic._--Admiral, alchemist, alchemy, alcohol, alcove, alembic, algebra,
+alkali, assassin.
+
+_Persian._--Turban, caravan, dervise, &c.
+
+_Turkish._--Coffee, bashaw, divan, scimitar, janisary, &c.
+
+_Hindoo languages._--Calico, chintz, cowrie, curry, lac, muslin, toddy, &c.
+
+_Chinese._--Tea, bohea, congou, hyson, soy, nankin &c.
+
+_Malay._--Bantam (fowl), gamboge, rattan, sago, shaddock, &c.
+
+_Polynesian._--Taboo, tattoo.
+
+_Tungusian or some similar Siberian language._--Mammoth, the bones of which
+are chiefly from the banks of the Lena.
+
+_North American Indian._--Squaw, wigwam, pemmican.
+
+_Peruvian._--Charki = prepared meat; whence _jerked_ beef.
+
+_Caribbean._--Hammock.
+
+s. 85. A distinction is drawn between the _direct_ and _indirect_, the
+latter leading to the _ultimate origin_ of words.
+
+Thus a word borrowed into the English from the French, might have been
+borrowed into the French from the Latin, into the Latin from the Greek,
+into the Greek from the Persian, &c., and so _ad infinitum_.
+
+The investigation of this is a matter of literary curiosity rather than any
+important branch of philology.
+
+The ultimate known origin of many common words sometimes goes back to a
+great date, and points to extinct languages--
+
+_Ancient Nubian._--Barbarous.
+
+_Ancient Egyptian._--Ammonia.
+
+_Ancient Syrian._--Cyder.
+
+_Ancient Lycian._--Pandar.
+
+_Ancient Lydian._--Maeander.
+
+_Ancient Persian._--Paradise.
+
+s. 86. Again, a word from a given language may be introduced by more lines
+than one; or it may be introduced twice over; once at an earlier, and again
+at a later period. In such a case its form will, most probably, vary; and,
+what is more, its meaning as well. Words of this sort may be called
+_di-morphic_, their _dimorphism_ having originated in one of two reasons--a
+difference of channel or a difference of date. Instances of the first are,
+_syrup_, _sherbet_, and _shrub_, all originally from the _Arabic_, _srb_;
+but introduced differently, viz., the first through the Latin, the second
+through the Persian, and the third through the Hindoo. Instances of the
+second are words like _minster_, introduced during the Anglo-Saxon, as
+contrasted with _monastery_, introduced during the Anglo-Norman period. By
+the proper application of these processes, we account for words so
+different in present form, yet so identical in origin, as _priest_ and
+_presbyter_, _episcopal_ and _bishop_, &c.
+
+s. 87. _Distinction._--The history of the languages that have been spoken
+in a particular country, is a different subject from the history of a
+particular language. The history of the languages that have been spoken in
+the United States of America, is the history of _Indian_ languages. The
+history of the language of the United States is the history of a Germanic
+language.
+
+s. 88. _Words of foreign simulating a vernacular origin._--These may occur
+in any mixed language whatever; they occur, however, oftener in the English
+than in any other.
+
+Let a word be introduced from a foreign language--let it have some
+resemblance in sound to a real English term: lastly, let the meanings of
+the two words be not absolutely incompatible. We may then have a word of
+foreign origin taking the appearance of an English one. Such, amongst
+others, are _beef-eater_, from _boeuffetier_; _sparrow-grass_, _asparagus_;
+_Shotover_, _Chateauvert_;[35] _Jerusalem_, _Girasole_;[36] _Spanish
+beefeater_, _spina bifida_; _periwig_, _peruke_; _runagate_, _renegade_;
+_lutestring_, _lustrino_;[37] _O yes_, _Oyez!_ _ancient_, _ensign_.[38]
+
+_Dog-cheap_.--This has nothing to do with _dogs_. The first syllabic is
+_god_ = _good_ transposed, and the second the _ch-p_ in _chapman_ ( =
+_merchant_) _cheap_, and _Eastcheap_. In Sir J. Mandeville, we find
+_god-kepe_ = _good bargain_.
+
+_Sky-larking_.--Nothing to do with _larks_ of any sort; still less the
+particular species, _alauda arvensis_. The word improperly spelt _l-a-r-k_,
+and banished to the slang regions of the English language, is the
+Anglo-Saxon _l['a]c_ = _game_, or _sport_; wherein the a is sounded as in
+_father_ (not as in _farther_). _Lek_ = _game_, in the present Scandinavian
+languages.
+
+_Zachary Macaulay_ = _Zumalacarregui_; _Billy Ruffian_ = _Bellerophon_;
+_Sir Roger Dowlas_ = _Surajah Dowlah_, although so limited to the common
+soldiers and sailors, who first used them, as to be exploded vulgarisms
+rather than integral parts of the language, are examples of the same
+tendency towards the irregular accommodation of misunderstood foreign
+terms.
+
+_Birdbolt_.--An incorrect name for the _gadus lota_, or _eel-pout_, and a
+transformation of _barbote_.
+
+_Whistle-fish_.--The same for _gadus mustela_, or _weasel-fish_.
+
+_Liquorice_ = _glycyrrhiza_.
+
+_Wormwood_ = _weremuth_, is an instance of a word from the same language,
+in an antiquated shape, being equally transformed with a word of really
+foreign origin.
+
+s. 89. Sometimes the transformation of the _name_ has engendered a change
+in the object to which it applies, or, at least, has evolved new ideas in
+connection with it. How easy for a person who used the words _beef-eater_,
+_sparrow-grass_, or _Jerusalem_, to believe that the officers designated by
+the former either eat or used to eat more beef than any other people, that
+the second word was the name for a _grass_ or herb of which _sparrows_ were
+fond; and that _Jerusalem_ artichokes came from Palestine.
+
+What has just been supposed has sometimes a real occurrence. To account for
+the name of _Shotover-hill_, I have heard that Little John _shot over_ it.
+Here the confusion, in order to set itself right, breeds a fiction. Again,
+in chess, the piece now called the _queen_, was originally the _elephant_.
+This was in Persian, _ferz_. In French it became _vierge_, which, in time,
+came to be mistaken for a derivative, and _virgo_ = _the virgin_, _the
+lady_, _the queen_.
+
+s. 90. Sometimes, where the form of a word in respect to its _sound_ is not
+affected, a false spirit of accommodation introduces an unetymological
+_spelling_; as _frontispiece_, from _frontispecium_, _sovereign_, from
+_sovrano_, _colleague_ from _collega_, _lanthorn_ (old orthography) from
+_lanterna_.
+
+The value of forms like these consists in their showing that language is
+affected by false etymologies as well as by true ones.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+s. 91. In _lambkin_ and _lancet_, the final syllables (-kin and -et) have
+the same power. They both express the idea of smallness or diminutiveness.
+These words are but two out of a multitude, the one (_lamb_) being of
+Saxon, the other (_lance_) of Norman origin. The same is the case with the
+superadded syllables: -kin being Saxon; -et Norman. Now to add a Saxon
+termination to a Norman word, or _vice vers[^a]_, is to corrupt the English
+language.
+
+This leads to some observation respecting the--
+
+s. 92. _Introduction of new words and Hybridism._--Hybridism is a term
+derived from _hybrid-a_, _a mongrel_; a Latin word _of Greek extraction_.
+
+The terminations -ize (as in _criticize_), -ism (as in _criticism_), -ic
+(as in _comic_)--these, amongst many others, are Greek terminations. To add
+them to words not of Greek origin is to be guilty of hybridism. Hence,
+_witticism_ is objectionable.
+
+The terminations -ble (as in _penetrable_), -bility (as in
+_penetrability_), -al (as in _parental_)--these, amongst many others, are
+Latin terminations. To add them to words not of Latin origin is to be
+guilty of hybridism.
+
+Hybridism is the commonest fault that accompanies the introduction of new
+words. The hybrid additions to the English language are most numerous in
+works on science.
+
+It must not, however, be concealed that several well established words are
+hybrid; and that, even in the writings of the classical Roman authors,
+there is hybridism between the Latin and the Greek.
+
+Nevertheless, the etymological view of every word of foreign origin is, not
+that it is put together in England, but that it is brought whole from the
+language to which it is vernacular. Now no derived word can be brought
+whole from a language unless, in that language, all its parts exist. The
+word _penetrability_ is not derived from the English word _penetrable_, by
+the addition of -ty. It is the Latin word _penetrabilitas_ imported.
+
+_In derived words all the parts must belong to one and the same language_,
+or, changing the expression, _every derived word must have a possible form
+in the language from which it is taken_. Such is the rule against
+hybridism.
+
+s. 93. A true word sometimes takes the appearance of a hybrid without
+really being so. The -icle, in _icicle_, is apparently the same as the
+-icle in _radicle_. Now, as _ice_ is Gothic, and -icle classical, hybridism
+is simulated. _Icicle_, however, is not a derivative but a compound; its
+parts being _is_ and _gicel_, both Anglo-Saxon words.[39]
+
+s. 94. _On incompletion of the radical._--Let there be in a given language
+a series of roots ending in -t, as _saemat_. Let a euphonic influence eject
+the -t, as often as the word occurs in the nominative case. Let the
+nominative case be erroneously considered to represent the root, or
+radical, of the word. Let a derivative word be formed accordingly, i.e., on
+the notion that the nominative form and the radical form coincide. Such a
+derivative will exhibit only a part of the root; in other words, the
+radical will be incomplete.
+
+Now all this is what actually takes place in words like _haemo-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 _haemat-_ and _saemat-_, not _haem-_and _saem-_.
+
+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 [Greek: distomos] examples of
+incompletion of the radical.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+s. 95. The preceding chapters have paved the way for a distinction between
+the _historical_ analysis of a language, and the _logical_ analysis of one.
+
+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 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 is not historical but logical; the words being
+classed not according to their _origin_, but according to their _meaning_.
+
+Now the logical and historical analyses of a language generally in some
+degree coincide; that is, terms for a certain set of ideas come from
+certain languages; just as in English a large proportion of our chemical
+terms are Arabic, whilst a still larger one of our legal ones are
+Anglo-Norman.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER II.
+
+THE RELATION OF THE ENGLISH TO THE ANGLO-SAXON, AND THE STAGES OF THE
+ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
+
+s. 96. The relation of the present English to the Anglo-Saxon is that of a
+_modern_ language to an _ancient_ one: the words _modern_ and _ancient_
+being used in a defined and technical sense.
+
+Let the word _smidhum_ illustrate this. _Smidh-um_, the dative plural of
+_smidh_, is equivalent in meaning to the English _to smiths_; or to the
+Latin _fabr-is_. _Smidhum_, 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 _smidhum_, does this
+and something more. It is the sign of the _dative case_ plural. The -um in
+_smidhum_, is the part of a word. The preposition _to_ is a separate word
+with an independent existence. _Smidhum_ is the radical syllable _smidh_ +
+the subordinate inflectional syllable -um, the sign of the dative case. The
+combination _to smiths_ is the substantive _smiths_ + the preposition _to_,
+equivalent in power to the sign of a dative case, but different from it in
+form. As far, then, as the words just quoted is concerned, the Anglo-Saxon
+differs from the English by expressing an idea by a certain _modification
+of the form of the root_, whereas the modern English denotes the same idea
+by _the addition of a preposition_; in other words, the Saxon _inflection_
+is superseded by a _combination_ of words.
+
+The sentences in italics are mere variations of the same general statement.
+1. _The earlier the stage of a given language the greater the amount of its
+inflectional forms, and the later the stage of a given language, the
+smaller the amount of them._ 2. _As languages become modern they substitute
+prepositions and auxiliary verbs for cases and tenses._ 3. _The amount of
+inflection is in the inverse proportion to the amount of prepositions and
+auxiliary verbs._ 4. _In the course of time languages drop their
+inflections, and substitute in its stead circumlocutions by means of
+prepositions, &c. The reverse never takes place._ 5. _Given two modes of
+expression, the one inflectional_ (smidhum), _the other
+circumlocutional_[40] (to smiths), _we can state that the first belongs to
+an early, the second to a late, state of language._
+
+The present chapter, then showing the relation of the English to the
+Anglo-Saxon, shows something more. It exhibits the _general_ relation of a
+modern to an ancient language. As the English is to the Anglo-Saxon, so are
+the Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian, to the old Norse; and so are the
+French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanese and Wallachian to the Latin,
+and the Romaic to the ancient Greek.
+
+s. 97. Contrasted with the English, the Anglo-Saxon has (among others) the
+following differences.
+
+NOUNS.
+
+1. _Gender._--In Anglo-Saxon there were three genders, the masculine, the
+feminine, and the neuter. With _adjectives_ each gender had its peculiar
+declension. With _substantives_ also there were appropriate terminations,
+though only to a certain degree.
+
+2. The definite article varied with the gender of its substantive; _thaet
+eage_, the eye; _se steorra_, the star; _seo tunge_, the tongue.
+
+3. _Number._--The plural form in -en (as in _oxen_), rare in English, was
+common in Anglo-Saxon. It was the regular termination of a whole
+declension; e.g., _e['a]gan_, 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; _smidhas_, smiths.
+
+4. _Case._--Of these the Saxons had, for their substantives, at least
+three; viz., the nominative, dative, genitive. With the pronouns and
+adjectives there was a true accusative form; and with a few especial words
+an ablative or instrumental one. _Smidh_, a smith; _smidhe_, to a smith;
+_smidhes_, of a smith. Plural, _smidhas_, smiths; _smidhum_, to smiths;
+_smidha_, of smiths: _he_, he; _hine_, him; _him_, to him; _his_, his;
+_se_, the; _tha_, the; _thy_, with the; _tham_, to the; _thaes_, of the.
+
+5. _Declension._--In _Anglo-Saxon_ it was necessary to determine the
+declension of a substantive. There was the weak, or simple declension for
+words ending in a vowel (as, _eage_, _steorra_, _tunga_), and the strong
+declension for words ending in a consonant (_smidh_, _spraec_, _le['a]f_).
+The letters i and u were dealt with as semivowels, semi-vowels being dealt
+with as consonants; so that words like _sunu_ and _gifu_ belonged to the
+same declension as _smidh_ and _spraec_.
+
+6. _Definite and indefinite form of adjectives._--In Anglo-Saxon each
+adjective had two forms, one _definite_ and one _indefinite_. There is
+nothing of this kind in English. We say _a good sword_, and _the good
+sword_ equally. In Anglo-Saxon, however, the first combination would be _se
+gode sweord_, the second _['a]n god sweord_, the definite form being
+distinguished from the indefinite by the addition of a vowel.
+
+7. _Pronouns personal._--The Anglo-Saxon language had for the first two
+persons a _dual_ number; inflected as follows:
+
+ _1st Person._ _2nd Person._
+ _Nom._ Wit _We two_ _Nom._ Git _Ye two_
+ _Acc._ Unc _Us two_ _Acc._ Ince _You two_
+ _Gen._ Uncer _Of us two_ _Gen._ Incer _Of you two._
+
+Besides this, the demonstrative, possessive, and relative pronouns, as well
+as the numerals _twa_ and _threo_, had a fuller declension than they have
+at present.
+
+VERBS.
+
+8. _Mood._--The subjunctive mood that in the present English (with one
+exception[41]) differs from the indicative only in the third person
+singular, was in Anglo-Saxon considerably different from the indicative.
+
+ _Indicative Mood._
+
+ _Pres. Sing._ 1. Lufige. _Plur._ 1. }
+ 2. Lufast. 2. } Lufiadh.
+ 3. Lufadh. 3. }
+
+ _Subjunctive Mood._
+
+ _Pres. Sing._ 1. } _Plur._ 1. }
+ 2. } Lufige 2. } Lufion.
+ 3. } 3. }
+
+The Saxon infinitive ended in -an (_lufian_), and besides this there was a
+so-called gerundial form, _to lufigenne_.
+
+Besides these there were considerable differences in respect to particular
+words; but of these no notice is taken; the object being to indicate the
+differences between the _ancient_ and _modern_ stages of a language in
+respect to _grammatical structure_.
+
+9. To bring about these changes a certain amount _of time_ is, of course,
+necessary; a condition which suggests the difficult question as to the
+_rate_ at which languages change. This is different for different
+languages; but as the investigation belongs to _general_ philology rather
+than to the particular history of the English language, it finds no place
+here.
+
+s. 98. The extent, however, to which external causes may accelerate or
+retard philological changes, is _not_ foreign to our subject; the influence
+of the Norman Conquest, upon the previous Anglo-Saxon foundation, being a
+problem of some difficulty.
+
+At the first glance it seems to have been considerable, especially in the
+way of simplifying the grammar. Yet the accuracy of this view is by no
+means unequivocal. The reasons against it are as follows:
+
+a. In Friesland no such conquest took place. Yet the modern Frisian, as
+compared with the ancient, is nearly as simple in its grammatical
+structure, as the English is when compared with the Anglo-Saxon.
+
+b. In Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, no such conquest took place. Yet the
+modern Danish and Swedish, as compared with the Old Norse, are nearly as
+simple in their grammatical structure, as the English is, when compared
+with the Anglo-Saxon.
+
+The question requires more investigation than it has met with.
+
+An extract from Mr. Hallam's "History of Literature" closes the present
+section, and introduces the next.
+
+ "Nothing can be more difficult, except by an arbitrary line, than to
+ determine the commencement of the English language; not so much, as in
+ those on the Continent, because we are in want of materials, but rather
+ from an opposite reason, the possibility of showing a very gradual
+ succession of verbal changes that ended in a change of denomination. We
+ should probably experience a similar difficulty, if we knew equally
+ well the current idiom of France or Italy in the seventh and eighth
+ centuries. For when we compare the earliest English of the thirteenth
+ century with the Anglo-Saxon of the twelfth, it seems hard to pronounce
+ why it should pass for a separate language, rather than a modification
+ or simplification of the former. We must conform, however, to usage,
+ and say that the Anglo-Saxon was converted into English:--1. By
+ contracting and otherwise modifying the pronunciation and orthography
+ of words. 2. By omitting many inflections, especially of the noun, and
+ consequently making more use of articles and auxiliaries. 3. By the
+ introduction of French derivatives. 4. By using less inversion and
+ ellipsis, especially in poetry. Of these, the second alone, I think,
+ can be considered as sufficient to describe a new form of language; and
+ this was brought about so gradually, that we are not relieved from much
+ of our difficulty, as to whether some compositions shall pass for the
+ latest offspring of the mother, or the earlier fruits of the daughter's
+ fertility. It is a proof of this difficulty that the best masters of
+ our ancient language have lately introduced the word Semi-Saxon, which
+ is to cover everything from A.D. 1150 to A.D. 1250."--Chapter i. 47.
+
+s. 99. This shows that by the middle of the 12th century, the Anglo-Saxon
+of the standard Anglo-Saxon authors, had undergone such a change as to
+induce the scholars of the present ago to denominate it, not Saxon, but
+Semi-Saxon. It had ceased to be genuine Saxon, but had not yet become
+English.
+
+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_).
+
+2. The ejection or shortening of final vowels, _thaet ylc_ for _thaet
+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 -adh in the persons plural of verbs; _hi
+clepen_ (_they call_) for _hi clypiadh_, &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.
+
+s. 100. _Old English stage._--Further changes convert Semi-Saxon into Old
+English. Some, amongst others, are the following:--
+
+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 _smidhum_.
+Of the dative singular the -e is retained (_ende_, _worde_); but it is by
+no means certain that, although recognized in writing, it was equally
+recognized in pronunciation also.
+
+2. The ejection of -es in the genitive singular whenever the preposition
+_of_ came before it; _Godes love_ (_God's love_), but the _love of God_,
+and not the _love of Godes_.
+
+3. The syllable -es as a sign of the genitive case 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 mere occasional
+occurrence) constitutes _Old English_ in contradistinction to Semi-Saxon.
+
+s. 101. In the Old English the following forms predominate.
+
+1. A fuller inflection of the demonstrative pronoun, or definite article;
+_than_, _thenne_, _thaere_, _tham_;--in contradistinction to the Middle
+English.
+
+2. The presence of the dative singular in -e; _ende_, _smithe_.
+
+3. The existence of a genitive plural in -r or -ra; _heora_, theirs;
+_aller_, of all. This, with substantives and adjectives, is less common.
+
+4. The substitution of _heo_ for _they_, of _heora_ for _their_, of _hem_
+for _them_.
+
+5. A more frequent use of _min_ and _thin_, for _my_ and _thy_;--in
+contradistinction to both Middle and Modern English.
+
+6. The use of _heo_ for _she_;--in contradistinction to Middle and Modern
+English and Old Lowland _Scotch_.
+
+7. The use of broader vowels; as in _iclepud_ or _iclepod_ (for _icleped_
+or _yclept_); _geongost_, youngest; _ascode_, asked; _eldore_, elder.
+
+8. The use of the strong preterits (_see_ the chapter on the tenses of
+verbs), where in the present English the weak form is found--_wex_, _wop_,
+_dalf_, for _waxed_, _wept_, _delved_.
+
+9. The omission not only of the gerundial termination -enne, but also of
+the infinitive sign -en after _to_; _to honte_, _to speke_;--in
+contradistinction to Semi-Saxon.
+
+10. The substitution of -en for -eth or -edh, in the first and second
+persons plural of verbs; _we wollen_, we will: _heo schullen_, they should.
+
+11. The comparative absence of the articles _se_ and _seo_.
+
+12. The substitution of _ben_ and _beeth_, for _synd_ and _syndon_ = _we_,
+_ye_, _they are_.
+
+s. 102. Concerning the extent to which the Anglo-Norman was used, I retail
+the following statements and quotations.
+
+ 1. "Letters even of a private nature were written in Latin till the
+ beginning of the reign of Edward I., soon after 1270, when a sudden
+ change brought in the use of French."--_Mr. Hallam, communicated by Mr.
+ Stevenson_ (_Literature of Europe_, i. 52, _and note_).
+
+ 2. Conversation between the members of the Universities was ordered to
+ be carried on either in Latin or French:--"_Si qua inter se proferant,
+ colloquio Latino vel saltem Gallico perfruantur._"--_Statutes of Oriel
+ College, Oxford._--_Hallam, ibid._ from Warton.
+
+ 3. "The Minutes of the Corporation of London, recorded in the Town
+ Clerk's Office, were in French, as well as the Proceedings in
+ Parliament, and in the Courts of Justice."--_Ibid._
+
+ 4. "In Grammar Schools, boys were made to construe their Latin into
+ French."--_Ibid._ "_Pueri in scholis, contra morem caeterarum nationum,
+ et Normannorum adventu, derelicto proprio vulgari, construere Gallice
+ compelluntur. Item quod filii nobilium ab ipsis cunabulorum crepundiis
+ ad Gallicum idioma informantur. Quibus profecto rurales homines
+ assimulari volentes, ut per hoc spectabiliores videantur, Francigenari
+ satagunt omni nisu._"--_Higden_ (_Ed. Gale_, p. 210).
+
+s. 103. The reigns of Edward III., and Richard II., may be said to form a
+transition from the _Old_ to the _Middle_; those of Mary and Elizabeth from
+the _Middle_ to the _New_, _Recent_ or _Modern English_. No very definite
+line of demarcation, however, can be drawn.
+
+s. 104. The _present_ tendencies of the English may be determined by
+observation: and as most of them will be noticed in the etymological part
+of this volume, the few here indicated must be looked upon as illustrations
+only.
+
+1. The distinction between the subjunctive and indicative mood is likely to
+pass away. We verify this by the very general tendency to say _if it is_,
+and _if he speaks_, rather than _if it be_, and _if he speak_.
+
+2. The distinction between the participle passive and the past tense is
+likely to pass away. We verify this by the tendency to say _it is broke_,
+and _he is smote_, for _it is broken_ and _he is smitten_.
+
+3. Of the double forms, _sung_ and _sang_, _drank_ and _drunk_, &c., one
+only will be the permanent.
+
+As stated above, these tendencies are but a few out of many, and have been
+adduced in order to indicate the subject rather than to exhaust it.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+QUESTIONS.
+
+ 1. Classify the Celtic elements of the English language.
+
+ 2. Enumerate the chief periods during which words from the Latin were
+ introduced into English, and classify the Latin elements accordingly.
+
+ 3. What words were introduced _directly_ by the Danes, Scandinavians,
+ or Norsemen? What _indirectly_? Through what language did these latter
+ come?
+
+ 4. Give the dates of the Battle of Hastings, and of the reigns of Louis
+ Outremer, Ethelred II, and Edward the Confessor. What was the amount of
+ Norman-French elements in England anterior to the Conquest?
+
+ 5. Give the languages from whence the following words were introduced
+ into the English--_flannel_, _jerked_ (as to _beef_), _hammock_,
+ _apparatus_, _waltz_, _Seraph_, _plaid_, _street_, _muslin_.
+
+ 6. Distinguish between the _direct_, _indirect_, and _ultimate_ origin
+ of introduced words. What words have we in English which are supposed
+ to have _originated_ in the Ancient Aegyptian, the Syrian, and the
+ languages of Asia Minor?
+
+ 7. Under what different forms do the following words appear in
+ English--_monasterium_, [Greek: presbuteros], [Greek: episkopos].
+ Account for these differences. _Syrup_, _shrub_, and _sherbet_, all
+ originate from the same word. Explain the present difference.
+
+ 8. Give the _direct_ origin (i.e., the languages from which they were
+ _immediately_ introduced) of--_Druid_, _epistle_, _chivalry_, _cyder_,
+ _maeander_. Give the _indirect_ origin of the same.
+
+ 9. Investigate the process by which a word like _sparrow-grass_,
+ apparently of _English_ origin, is, in reality, derived from the Latin
+ word _asparagus_. Point out the incorrectness in the words
+ _frontispiece_, _colleague_, and _lanthorn_.
+
+ 10. To what extent may _Norse_, and to what extent may _Celtic_ words,
+ not found in the current language of English, be found in the
+ provincial dialects?
+
+ 11. What were the original names of the towns _Whitby_ and _Derby_?
+ From what language are the present names derived? Give the reason for
+ your answer.
+
+ 12. Show the extent to which the _logical_ and _historical_ analyses
+ coincide in respect to the words introduced from the Roman of the
+ second period, the Arabic, the Anglo-Norman, and the Celtic of the
+ current English.
+
+ 13. What are the plural forms of _criterion_, _axis_, _genius_,
+ _index_, _dogma_? When is a word introduced from a foreign language
+ _perfectly_, when _imperfectly_ incorporated with the language into
+ which it is imported? Is the following expression correct--_the
+ cherubim that singeth aloft_? If not, why?
+
+ 14. What is there exceptionable in the words _semaphore_ (meaning a
+ sort of telegraph), and _witticism_. Give the etymologies of the words
+ _icicle_, _radicle_, and _radical_.
+
+ 15. What are the singular forms of _cantharides_, _phaenomena_, and
+ _data_?
+
+ 16. What are the stages of the English language? How does the present
+ differ from the older ones?
+
+ 17. Exhibit in detail the inflections of the Anglo-Saxon a) noun, and
+ b) verb, which are not found in the present English. What is the import
+ of the loss of inflections, and their replacement by separate words?
+ What is the nature of such words in nouns? What in verbs?
+
+ 18. Contrast the syntax of the Anglo-Saxon with the Modern English
+ adjective. What is the English for the Anglo-Saxon words _wit_, _unc_,
+ _incer_?
+
+ 19. Express, in general terms, the chief points wherein a modern
+ language differs from an ancient one: or, rather, the points wherein
+ the different stages of the same language differ.
+
+ 20. Investigate the influence of the Norman Conquest on the English.
+ Explain the terms Semi-Saxon, Old English, and Middle English. Compare
+ the stages of the English with those of the other Gothic tongues.
+
+ 21. Give the Modern English for the following forms and
+ expressions--_munucas_, _steorran_, _to lufienne_. What are the
+ Anglo-Saxon forms of _munucan_, _steorres_, _i-hotte_, _clepen_?
+ Translate the Latin word _omnium_ (genitive plural of _omnis_) into
+ _Old_ English. Translate the Greek [Greek: ho], [Greek: he], [Greek:
+ to] into Anglo-Saxon, Old English, and Modern English.
+
+ 22. Investigate the extent to which the Anglo-Norman superseded the
+ Anglo-Saxon subsequent to the Conquest. Is any further change in the
+ grammatical structure of our language probable? If so, what do you
+ consider will be the nature of it?
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+PART III.
+
+SOUNDS, LETTERS, PRONUNCIATION, SPELLING.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+CHAPTER I.
+
+GENERAL NATURE AND CERTAIN PROPERTIES OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS.
+
+s. 105. To two points connected with the subject of the following chapter,
+the attention of the reader is requested.
+
+a. In the comparison of sounds the ear is liable to be misled by the eye.
+Thus--
+
+The syllables ka and ga are similar syllables. The vowel is in each the
+same, and the consonant is but slightly different. Hence the words ka and
+ga are more allied to each other than the words ka and ba, ka and ta, &c.,
+because the consonantal sounds of k and g are more allied than the
+consonantal sounds of k and b, k and t.
+
+Comparing the syllables ga and ka, we see the affinity between the sounds,
+and we see it at the first glance. It lies on the surface, and strikes the
+ear at once.
+
+It is, however, very evident that ways might be devised or might arise from
+accident, of concealing the 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 of the two syllables remained the same
+also; and that, if the contrary appeared to be the case, the ear was misled
+by the eye. Still a little consideration would be required. Now in the
+English language we have (amongst others) the following modes of spelling
+that have a tendency to mislead;--
+
+The sounds of ph and of f, in _Philip_ and _fillip_, differ to the eye, but
+to the ear are identical. Here a difference is simulated.
+
+The sounds of th in _thin_, and of th in _thine_, differ to the ear but to
+the eye seem the same. Here a difference is concealed.
+
+Furthermore. These last sounds appear to the eye to be double or compound.
+This is not the case; they are simple single sounds, and not the sounds of
+t followed by h, as the spelling leads us to imagine.
+
+b. Besides improper modes of spelling, there is another way of concealing
+the true nature of sounds. If I say that ka and ga are allied, the alliance
+is manifest; since I compare the actual _sounds_. If I say _ka_ and _gee_
+are allied, the alliance is concealed; since I compare, not the actual
+sounds, but only the _names of the letters_ that express those sounds. Now
+in the English language we have (amongst others) the following names of
+letters that have a tendency to mislead:--
+
+The sounds fa and va are allied. The names _eff_ and _vee_ conceal this
+alliance.
+
+The sounds sa and za are allied. The names _ess_ and _zed_ conceal the
+alliance.
+
+In comparing sounds it is advisable to have nothing to do either with
+letters or names of letters. Compare the sounds themselves.
+
+s. 106. In many cases it is sufficient, in comparing consonants, to compare
+syllables that contain those consonants; e.g., in order 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) the
+imperfect sounds of p', b', t', d'.
+
+s. 107. Let any of the _vowels_ (for instance, the a in _father_) be
+sounded. The lips, the tongue, and the parts within the throat remain in
+the same position; and as long as these remain in the same position the
+sound is that of the vowel under consideration. Let, however, a change take
+place in the position of the organs of sound; let, for instance, the lips
+be closed, or the tongue be applied to the front part of the mouth: in that
+case the vowel sound is cut short. It undergoes a change. It terminates in
+a sound that is different, according to the state of those organs whereof
+the position has been changed. If, on the vowel in question, the lips be
+closed, there then arises an imperfect sound of b or p. If on the other
+hand, the tongue be applied to the front teeth, or to the forepart of the
+palate, the sound is one (more or less imperfect) of t or d. This fact
+illustrates the difference between the vowels and the consonants. It may be
+verified by pronouncing the a in _fate_, ee in _feet_, oo in _book_, o in
+_note_, &c.
+
+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.
+
+s. 108. The primary division of our articulate sounds is into vowels and
+consonants. The latter are again divided into liquids (l, m, n, r) and
+mutes (p, b, f, v, t, d, k, g, s, z, &c.).
+
+s. 109. _Sharp and flat._--Take the sounds of p, f, t, k, s. Isolate them
+from their vowels, and pronounce them. The sound is the sound of a whisper.
+
+Let b, v, d, g, z, be similarly treated. The sound is no whisper, but one
+at the natural tone of our voice.
+
+Now p, f, t, k, s (with some others that will be brought forward anon) are
+_sharp_, whilst b, v, &c., are _flat_. Instead of _sharp_, some say _hard_,
+and instead of _flat_, some say _soft_. The terms _sonant_ and _surd_ are,
+in a scientific point of view, the least exceptionable. They have, however,
+the disadvantage of being pedantic. The _tenues_ of the classics (as far as
+they go) are sharp, the _mediae_ flat.
+
+s. 110. _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.
+
+s. 111. Concerning the vowels, we may predicate a) that they are all
+continuous, b) that they are all flat.
+
+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.
+
+s. 112.--The letter h is no _articulate_ sound, but only a breathing.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER II.
+
+SYSTEM OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS.
+
+s. 113.--The attention of the reader is now directed to the following
+_foreign_ vowel sounds.
+
+1. The _['e] ferm['e]_, of the French.--This is a sound allied to, but
+different from, the a in _fate_, and the ee in _feet_. It is intermediate
+to the two.
+
+2. The u of the French, ue of the Germans, y of the Danes.--This sound is
+intermediate to the ee in _feet_, and the oo in _book_.
+
+3. The _o chiuso_, of the Italians.--Intermediate to the o in _note_, and
+the oo in _book_.
+
+For these sounds we have the following sequences: a in _fate_, _['e]
+ferm['e]_, ee in _feet_, ue in _uebel_ (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.
+
+s. 114. _The system of the mutes._--Preliminary to the consideration of the
+system of the mutes, let it be observed:--
+
+ 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 th.
+
+ 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 dh.
+
+ 3. That the sh in _shine_ is a simple single sound, and that it may be
+ expressed by the sign [sigma][42] (Greek [Greek: sigma]).
+
+ 4. That the z in _azure_, _glazier_ (French j) is a simple single
+ sound, and that it may be expressed by the sign [zeta][42] (Greek
+ [Greek: zeta]).
+
+ 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
+ [kappa] and the sign [gamma][42] (Greek [Greek: kappa] and [Greek:
+ gamma]).
+
+s. 115. 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 f is continuous,
+whilst p is explosive. This we may ascertain by considering the position of
+s. The sound of s is _continuous_; yet s, in respect to the difference
+under consideration, is classed not with f the continuous sound but with p
+the explosive one. This difference, which has yet to be properly
+elucidated, is expressed by a particular term; and p is called _lene_, f is
+called _aspirate_.
+
+ As f is to p so is v to b.
+ As v is to b so is th to t.
+ As th is to t so is dh to d.
+ As dh is to d so is [kappa] to k.
+ As [kappa] is to k so is [gamma] to g.
+ As [gamma] is to g so is [sigma] to s.
+ As [sigma] is to s so is [zeta] to z.
+
+Hence p, b, t, d, k, g, s, z, are _lene_; f, v, th, dh, [kappa], [gamma],
+[sigma], [zeta], are _aspirate_. Also p, f, t, th, k, [kappa], s, [sigma],
+are _sharp_, whilst b, v, d, dh, g, [gamma], z, [zeta], are _flat_; so that
+there is a double series of relationship capable of being expressed as
+follows:--
+
+ _Lene._ _Aspirate._ | _Sharp._ _Flat._
+ Sharp. Flat. Sharp. Flat. | Lene. Aspirate. Lene. Aspirate.
+ p b f v | p f b v
+ t d th dh | t th d dh
+ k g [kappa] [gamma] | k [kappa] g [gamma]
+ s z [sigma] [zeta] | s [sigma] z [zeta]
+
+All the so-called aspirates are continuous; and, with the exception of s
+and z, all the lenes are explosive.
+
+s. 116. I believe that in the fact of each mute appearing in a four-fold
+form (i.e., sharp, or flat, lene, or aspirate), lies the essential
+character of the mutes as opposed to the liquids.
+
+s. 117. Y and w.--These sounds, respectively intermediate to [gamma] and i
+(the ee in _feet_), and to v and u (oo in _book_), form a transition from
+the vowels to the consonants.
+
+s. 118. The French word _roi_, and the English words _oil_, _house_, are
+specimens of a fresh class of articulations; viz., of _compound vowel_
+sounds or diphthongs. The diphthong oi is the vowel o + the semivowel y.
+The diphthongal sound in _roi_ is the vowel o + the semivowel w. In _roi_
+the semivowel element precedes, in _oil_ it follows.
+
+s. 119. 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_.
+
+s. 120. _Chest_, _jest_.--Here we have _compound consonantal_ sounds. The
+ch in _chest_ = t + sh; the j in _jest_ = d + zh. I believe that in these
+combinations one or both the elements, viz., t and sh, d and zh, are
+modified; but I am unable to state the exact nature of this modification.
+
+s. 121. Ng.--The sound of the ng in _sing_, _king_, _throng_, when at the
+end of a word, or of _singer_, _ringing_, &c., in the middle of a word, is
+not the natural sound of the combination n and g, each letter retaining its
+natural power and sound; but a simple single sound, for which the
+combination ng is a conventional mode of expression.
+
+s. 122. Compared with a in _fate_, and the o in _note_, a in _father_, and
+the aw in _bawl_, are _broad_; the vowels of _note_ and _fate_ being
+_slender_.
+
+s. 123. In _fat_, the vowel is, according to common parlance, _short_; in
+_fate_, it is _long_. Here we have the introduction of two fresh terms. For
+the words _long_ and _short_, I substitute _independent_ and _dependent_.
+If from the word _fate_ I separate the final consonantal sound, the
+syllable fa remains. In this syllable the a has precisely the sound that it
+had before. It remains unaltered. The removal of the consonant has in
+nowise modified its sound or power. It is not so, however, with the vowel
+in the word _fat_. If from this I remove the consonant following, and so
+leave the a at the end of the syllable, instead of in the middle, I must do
+one of two things: I must sound it either as the a in _fate_, or else as
+the a in _father_. Its (so-called) short sound it cannot retain, unless it
+be supported by a consonant following. For this reason it is _dependent_.
+The same is the case with all the so-called short sounds, viz., the e in
+_bed_, i in _fit_, u in _bull_, o in _not_, u in _but_.
+
+s. 124. It is not every vowel that is susceptible of every modification. I
+(ee) and u (oo) are incapable of becoming _broad_. The e in _bed_, although
+both broad and slender, is incapable of becoming _independent_. For the u
+in _but_, and for the oe of certain foreign languages, I have no
+satisfactory systematic position.
+
+ s. 125. _Vowel System._
+
+ _Broad._ _Slender._
+ _Independent._ || _Independent._ | _Dependent._
+ a, in _father_ || a, in _fate_ | a, in _fat_.
+ || ['e] in _ferm['e]_, | ['e], in _ferm['e]_,
+ || _long_ | _short_.
+ e, in _meine_, Germ. || | e, in _bed_.
+ || ee, in _feet_ | i, _pit_.
+ || ue, of the German, | the same, _short_.
+ || _long_ |
+ || oo, in _book_ | ou, in _could_.
+ || o in _chiuso_ | the same, _short_.
+ aw, in _bawl_ || o, in _note_ | o, in _not_.
+
+From these the semivowels w and y make a transition to the consonants v and
+the so-called aspirate of g, respectively.
+
+s. 126. _System of Consonants._
+
+ Liquids. Mutes. Semivowels.
+
+ || Lene. | Aspirate. ||
+ || Sharp. Flat. | Sharp. Flat. ||
+ || | ||
+ m || p v | f v || w
+ n || t d | th dh || .
+ l || k g |[kappa] [gamma] || y
+ r || s z |[sigma] [zeta] || .
+
+ n is doubled in _unnatural_, _innate_, _oneness_.
+ l -- _soulless_, _civil-list_, _palely_.
+ k -- _book-case_.
+ t -- _seaport-town_.
+
+It must not, however, be concealed, that, in the mouths even of correct
+speakers, one of the doubled sounds is often dropped.
+
+s. 132. _True aspirates rare._--The criticism applied to words like
+_pitted_, &c., applies also to words like _Philip_, _thin_, _thine_, &c.
+There is therein no sound of h. How the so-called aspirates differ from
+their corresponding lenes has not yet been determined. That it is _not_ by
+the addition of h is evident. Ph and th are conventional modes of spelling
+simple single sounds, which might better be expressed by simple single
+signs.
+
+In our own language the _true_ aspirates, like the true reduplications, are
+found only in compound words; and there they are often slurred in the
+pronunciation.
+
+ We find p and h in the words _haphazard_, _upholder_.
+ -- b and h -- _abhorrent_, _cub-hunting_.
+ -- f and h -- _knife-handle_, _off hand_.
+ -- v and h -- _stave-head_.
+ -- d and h -- _adhesive_, _childhood_.
+ -- t and h -- _nuthook_.
+ -- th and h -- _withhold_.
+ -- k and h -- _inkhorn_, _bakehouse_.
+ -- g and h -- _gig-horse_.
+ -- s and h -- _race-horse_, _falsehood_.
+ -- z and h -- _exhibit_, _exhort_.
+ -- r and h -- _perhaps_.
+ -- l and h -- _wellhead_, _foolhardy_.
+ -- m and h -- _Amherst_.
+ -- n and h -- _unhinge_, _inherent_, _unhappy_.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER IV.
+
+EUPHONY AND THE PERMUTATION OF LETTERS.
+
+s. 133. 1. Let there be two syllables of which the one ends in m, and the
+other begins with r, as we have in the syllables num- and -rus of the Latin
+word _numerus_.
+
+2. Let an ejection of the intervening letters bring these two syllables
+into immediate contact, _numrus_. The m and r form an unstable combination.
+To remedy this there is a tendency to insert an intervening sound.
+
+In English, the form which the Latin word _numerus_ takes is _number_; in
+Spanish, _nombre_. The b makes no part of the original word, but has been
+inserted for the sake of _euphony_; or, to speak more properly, by a
+euphonic process. The word euphony is derived from [Greek: eu] (_well_),
+and [Greek: phone] (_f[^o]nae_, a voice).
+
+s. 134. In the words _give_ and _gave_ we have a change of tense expressed
+by a change of vowel. In the words _price_ and _prize_ a change of meaning
+is expressed by a change of consonant. In _clothe_ and _clad_ there is a
+change both of a vowel and of a consonant. In the words _to use_ and _a
+use_ there is a similar change, although it is not expressed by the
+spelling. To the ear the verb _to use_ ends in z, although not to the eye.
+All these are instances of the _permutation_ of letters.
+
+ _Permutation of Vowels._
+
+ a to [)e], as _man_, _men_.
+ a to oo, as _stand_, _stood_.
+ a to u, as _dare_, _durst_.
+ a to [=e], as _was_, _were_.
+ ea to o, as _speak_, _spoken_.
+ ea = [)e] to ea = [=e], as _breath_, _breathe_.
+ ee to [)e], as _deep_, _depth_.
+ ea to o, as _bear_, _bore_.
+ i to a, as _spin_, _span_.
+ i to u, as _spin_, _spun_.
+ [=i] = ei to o, as _smite_, _smote_.
+ i = ei to [)i], as _smite_, _smitten_.
+ i to a, as _give_, _gave_.
+ i = ei to a, as _rise_, _raise_.
+ [)i] to e, as _sit_, _set_.
+ ow to ew, as _blow_, _blew_.
+ o to e, as _strong_, _strength_.
+ oo to ee, as _tooth_, _teeth_.
+ o to i, as _top_, _tip_.
+ o to e, as _old_, _elder_; _tell_, _told_.
+ [)o] to e, as _brother_, _brethren_.
+ [=o] = oo to i, as _do_, _did_.
+ o = oo to o = [)u], as _do_, _done_.
+ oo to o, as _choose_, _chose_.
+
+ _Permutation of Consonants._
+
+ f to v, _life_, _live_; _calf_, _calves_.
+ th to dh, _breath_, _to breathe_.
+ th to d, _seethe_, _sod_; _clothe_, _clad_.
+ d to t, _build_, _built_.
+ s to z, _use_, _to use_.
+ s to r, _was_, _were_; _lose_, _forlorn_.
+
+In _have_ and _had_ we have the _ejection_ of a sound; in _work_ and
+_wrought_, the _transposition_ of one.
+
+ _Permutation of Combinations._
+
+ ie = i to ow, as _grind_, _ground_.
+ ow to i = ei, as _mouse_, _mice_;
+ _cow_, _kine_.
+ ink to augh, as _drink_, _draught_.
+ ing to ough, as _bring_, _brought_.
+ y (formerly g), to ough, as _buy_, _bought_.
+ igh = ei to ough, as _fight_, _fought_.
+ eek to ough, as _seek_, _sought_.
+
+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.
+
+s. 135. In respect to the formation of syllables, I am aware of no more
+than one point that requires any especial consideration.
+
+In certain words, of more than one syllable, it is difficult to say to
+which syllable an intervening consonant belongs. For instance, does the v
+in _river_, and the e in _fever_, belong to the first or the second
+syllable? Are the words to be divided thus, _ri-ver_, _fe-ver_? or thus,
+_riv-er_, _feve-r_?
+
+The solution of the question lies by no means on the surface.
+
+In the first place, the case is capable of being viewed in two points of
+view--an etymological and a phonetic one.
+
+That the c and r in _become_, _berhymed_, &c., belong to the second
+syllable, we determine at once by taking the words to pieces; whereby we
+get the words _come_ and _rhymed_ in an isolated independent form. But this
+fact, although it settles the point in etymology, leaves it as it was in
+phonetics; since it in nowise follows, that, because the c in the _simple_
+word _come_ is exclusively attached to the letter that succeeds, it is, in
+the _compound_ word _become_, exclusively attached to it also.
+
+To the following point of structure in the consonantal sounds the reader's
+attention is particularly directed.
+
+1. Let the vowel a (as in _fate_) be sounded.--2. Let it be followed by the
+consonant p, so as to form the syllable _[=a]p_. To form the sound of p, it
+will be found that the lips close on the sound of a, and arrest it. Now, if
+the lips be left to themselves they will not _remain_ closed on the sound,
+but will open again; in a slight degree indeed, but in a degree sufficient
+to cause a kind of vibration, or, at any rate, to allow an escape of the
+remainder of the current of breath by which the sound was originally
+formed. To re-open in a slight degree is the natural tendency of the lips
+in the case exhibited above.
+
+Now, by an effort, let this tendency to re-open be counteracted. Let the
+remaining current of breath be cut short. We have, then, only this, viz.,
+so much of the syllable _[=a]p_ 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 [=a]p 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 of its inaccuracy, before he proceeds to the
+conclusions that will be drawn from it.
+
+The account, however, being recognized, we have in the sound of p, two
+elements:--
+
+1. That formed by the current of air and the closure of the lips, as in ap.
+This may be called the sound of breath _arrested_.
+
+2. That formed by the current of air, and the opening of the lips, as in
+pa. This may be called the sound of breath _escaping_.
+
+Now what may be said of p may be said of all the other consonants, the
+words _tongue_, _teeth_, &c., being used instead of _lips_, according to
+the case.
+
+Let the sound of breath _arrested_ be expressed by [pi], and that of breath
+_escaping_ be expressed by [varpi], the two together form p ([pi] + [varpi]
+= p).
+
+Thus ap (as quoted above) is p - [varpi], or [pi]; whilst pa (sounded
+similarly) is p - [pi], or [varpi].
+
+In the formation of syllables, I consider that the sound of breath arrested
+belongs to the first, and the sound of breath escaping to the second
+syllable; that if each sound were expressed by a separate sign, the word
+_happy_ would be divided thus, _ha[pi]-[varpi]y_; and that such would be
+the case with all consonants between two syllables. The _whole_ consonant
+belongs neither to one syllable nor the other. Half of it belongs to each.
+The reduplication of the p in _happy_, the t in _pitted_, &c., is a mere
+point of spelling.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER VI.
+
+ON QUANTITY.
+
+s. 136. The dependent vowels, as the a in _fat_, i in _fit_, u in _but_, o
+in _not_, have the character of being uttered with rapidity, and they pass
+quickly in the enunciation, the voice not resting on them. This rapidity of
+utterance becomes more evident when we contrast with them the prolonged
+sounds of the a in _fate_, ee in _feet_, oo in _book_, or o in _note_;
+wherein the utterance is retarded, and wherein the voice rests, delays, or
+is prolonged. The f and t of _fate_ are separated by a longer interval than
+the f and t of _fat_; and the same is the case with _fit_, _feet_, &c.
+
+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 1/3 of the whole word.
+
+Let, however, the n and the t of _note_ be each as 1, the o being as 2.
+Then, instead of each consonant constituting 1/3 of the whole word, it
+shall constitute but 1/4.
+
+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_.
+
+s. 137. Attention is directed to the word _vowel_. The longness or
+shortness of a _vowel_ is one thing. The longness or shortness of a
+_syllable_ another. This difference is important in prosody; especially in
+comparing the English with the classical metres.
+
+The vowel in the syllable _see_ is long; and long it remains, whether it
+stand as it is, or be followed by a consonant, as in _see-n_, or by a
+vowel, as in _see-ing_.
+
+The vowel in the word _sit_ is short. If followed by a vowel it becomes
+unpronounceable, except as the ea in _seat_ or the i in _sight_. By a
+consonant, however, it _may_ be followed. Such is the case in the word
+quoted--_sit_. Followed by a _second_ consonant, it still retains its
+shortness, e.g., _sits_. Whatever the comparative length of the
+_syllables_, _see_ and _seen_, _sit_ and _sits_, may be, the length of
+their respective _vowels_ is the same.
+
+Now, if we determine the character of the syllable by the character of the
+vowel, all syllables are short wherein there is a short vowel, and all are
+long wherein there is a long one. Hence, measured by the quantity of the
+vowel, the word _sits_ is short, and the syllable _see-_ in _seeing_ is
+long.
+
+s. 138. 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 quantity,
+not by the length of the vowel, but by the length of the syllable taken
+altogether._ The perception of this distinction enables us to comprehend
+the following statements.
+
+a. That vowels long by nature may _appear_ to become short by position, and
+_vice vers[^a]_.
+
+b. That, by a laxity of language, the _vowel_ may be said to have changed
+its quantity, whilst it is the _syllable_ alone that has been altered.
+
+c. That if one person measures his quantities by the vowels, and another by
+the syllables, what is short to the one, shall be long to the other, and
+_vice vers[^a]_. The same is the case with nations.
+
+d. That one of the most essential differences between the English and the
+classical languages is that the quantities (as far as they go) of the first
+are measured by the vowel, those of the latter by the syllable. To a Roman
+the word _monument_ consists of two short syllables and one long one; to an
+Englishman it contains three short syllables.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER VII.
+
+ON ACCENT.
+
+s. 139. In the word _tyrant_ there is an emphasis, or stress, upon the
+first syllable. In the word _presume_ there is an emphasis, or stress, on
+the second syllable. This emphasis, or stress, is called _accent_. The
+circumstance of a syllable bearing an accent is sometimes expressed by a
+mark ('); in which case the word is said to be accentuated, i.e., to have
+the accent signified in writing.
+
+Words accented on the last syllable--_Brig['a]de_, _pret['e]nce_,
+_harpo['o]n_, _reli['e]ve_, _det['e]r_, _ass['u]me_, _bes['o]ught_,
+_ber['e]ft_, _bef['o]re_, _abro['a]d_, _ab['o]de_, _abstr['u]se_,
+_interm['i]x_, _super['a]dd_, _cavali['e]r_.
+
+Words accented on the last syllable but one--_An'chor_, _ar'gue_,
+_h['a]sten_, _f['a]ther_, _f['o]xes_, _sm['i]ting_, _h['u]sband_,
+_m['a]rket_, _v['a]pour_, _b['a]refoot_, _arch['a]ngel_, _besp['a]tter_,
+_dis['a]ble_, _terr['i]fic_.
+
+Words accented on the last syllable but two--_Reg'ular_, _an'tidote_,
+_for'tify_, _susc['e]ptible_, _incontrov['e]rtible_.
+
+Words accented on the last syllable but three (rare)--_R['e]ceptacle_,
+_r['e]gulating_, _t['a]lkativeness_, _['a]bsolutely_, _l['u]minary_,
+_in['e]vitable_, &c.
+
+s. 140. A great number of words are distinguished by the difference of
+accent alone.
+
+ An _['a]ttribute_. To _attr['i]bute_.
+ The month _A['u]gust_. An _aug['u]st_ person.
+ A _com'pact_. _Comp['a]ct_ (close).
+ To _con'jure_ (magically). _Conj['u]re_ (enjoin).
+ _Des'ert_, wilderness. _Des['e]rt_, merit.
+ _Inv['a]lid_, not valid. _Inval['i]d_, a sickly person.
+ _M['i]nute_, 60 seconds. _Min['u]te_, small.
+ _S['u]pine_, part of speech. _Sup['i]ne_, careless, &c.
+
+s. 141. In _t['y]rant_ and _pres['u]me_, we deal with single words; and in
+each _word_ we determine which _syllable_ is accented. Contrasted with the
+sort of accent that follows, this may be called a _verbal_ accent.
+
+In the line,
+
+ Better for _us_, perhaps, it might appear,
+ (Pope's "Essay on Man," I. 169.)
+
+the pronoun _us_ is strongly brought forward. An especial stress or
+emphasis is laid upon it, denoting that _there are other beings to whom it
+might not appear_, &c. This is collected from the context. Here there is a
+_logical_ accent. "When one word in a sentence is distinguished by a
+stress, as more important than the rest, we may say that it is
+_emphatical_, or that an _emphasis_ is laid upon it. When one syllable in a
+word is distinguished by a stress, and more audible than the rest, we say
+that it is accented, or that an accent is put upon it. Accent, therefore,
+is to syllables what emphasis is to sentences; it distinguishes one from
+the crowd, and brings it forward to observation."--Nares' "Orthoepy," part
+ii. chap. 1.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER VIII.
+
+ORTHOGRAPHY.
+
+s. 142. _Orthoepy_, a word derived from the Greek _orthon_ (_upright_), and
+_epos_ (_a word_), signifies the right utterance of words. Orthoepy
+determines words, and deals with a language as it is _spoken_;
+_orthography_ determines the correct spelling of words, and deals with a
+language as it is _written_. This latter term is derived from the Greek
+words _orthos_ (_upright_), and _graph['e]_, or _grafae_ (_writing_).
+Orthography is less essential to language than orthoepy; since all
+languages are spoken, whilst but a few languages are written. Orthography
+presupposes orthoepy. Orthography addresses itself to the eye, orthoepy to
+the ear. Orthoepy deals with the articulate sounds that constitute
+syllables and words; orthography treats of the signs by which such
+articulate sounds are expressed in writing. A _letter_ is the sign of an
+articulate (and, in the case of h, of an inarticulate) sound.
+
+s. 143. 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.
+
+s. 144. First, in respect to a sufficient and consistent alphabet--Let
+there be in a certain language, simple single articulate sounds, to the
+number of forty, whilst the simple single signs, or letters, expressive of
+them, amount to no more than _thirty_. In this case the alphabet is
+insufficient. It is not full enough: since ten of the simple single
+articulate sounds have no corresponding signs whereby they may be
+expressed. In our own language, the sounds (amongst others) of th in
+_thin_, and of th in _thine_, are simple and single, whilst there is no
+sign equally simple and single to spell them with.
+
+s. 145. An alphabet, however, may be sufficient, and yet imperfect. It may
+err on the score of inconsistency. Let there be in a given language two
+simple single sounds, (for instance) the p in _pate_, and the f in _fate_.
+Let these sounds stand in a given relation to each other. Let a given sign,
+for instance, [Hebrew: P] (as is actually the case in Hebrew), stand for
+the p in _pate_; and let a second sign be required for the f in _fate_.
+Concerning the nature of this latter sign, two views may be taken. One
+framer of the alphabet, perceiving that the two sounds are mere
+modifications of each other, may argue that no new sign (or letter) is at
+all necessary, but that the sound of f in _fate_ may be expressed by a mere
+modification of the sign (or letter) [Hebrew: P], and may be written thus
+[Hebrew: P.], or thus [Hebrew: P'] or [Hebrew: P`], &c.; upon the principle
+that like sounds should be expressed by like signs. The other framer of the
+alphabet, contemplating the difference between the two sounds, rather than
+the likeness, may propose, not a mere modification of the sign [Hebrew:
+P], but a letter altogether new, such as f, or [Greek: ph], &c., upon the
+principle that sounds of a given degree of dissimilitude should be
+expressed by signs of a different degree of dissimilitude.
+
+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 vers[^a]_. 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.
+
+s. 146. 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 [Hebrew: T] and [Hebrew: T`], mere
+_varieties_ of each other, are represented by distinct and dissimilar
+signs, whilst [Hebrew: T] and [Hebrew: T], sounds _specifically_ distinct,
+are expressed by a mere modification of the same sign, or letter.
+
+s. 147. _The right application of an alphabet._--An alphabet may be both
+sufficient and consistent, accurate in its representation of the alliances
+between articulate sounds, and in no wise redundant; and yet, withal, it
+may be so wrongly applied as to be defective. Of defect in the use or
+application of the letters of an alphabet, the three main causes are the
+following:--
+
+a. _Unsteadiness in the power of letters._--Of this there are two kinds. In
+the first, there is one sound with two (or more) ways of expressing it.
+Such is the sound of 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_.
+
+b. _The aim at secondary objects._--The natural aim of orthography, of
+spelling, or of writing, is to express the _sounds_ of a language.
+Syllables and words it takes as they meet the ear, it translates them by
+appropriate signs, and so paints them, as it were, to the eye. That this is
+the natural and primary object is self-evident; but beyond this natural and
+primary object there is, with the orthographical systems of most languages,
+a secondary one, viz., the attempt to combine with the representation of
+the sound of a given word, the representation of its history and origin.
+
+The sound of the c, in _city_, is the sound that we naturally spell with
+the letter s, and if the expression of this sound was the _only_ object of
+our orthographists, the word would be spelt accordingly (_sity_). The
+following facts, however, traverse this simple view of the matter. The word
+is a derived word; it is transplanted into our own language from the Latin,
+where it is spelt with a c (_civitas_); and to change this c into s
+conceals the origin and history of the word. For this reason the c is
+retained, although, as far as the mere expression of sounds (the primary
+object in orthography) is concerned, the letter is a superfluity. In cases
+like the one adduced the orthography is bent to a secondary end, and is
+traversed by the etymology.
+
+c. _Obsoleteness._--It is very evident that modes of spelling which at one
+time may have been correct, may, by a change of pronunciation, become
+incorrect; so that orthography becomes obsolete whenever there takes place
+a change of speech without a correspondent change of spelling.
+
+s. 148. From the foregoing sections we arrive at the theory of a full and
+perfect alphabet and orthography, of which a few (amongst many others) of
+the chief conditions are as follow:--
+
+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.
+
+s. 149. Previous to considering the sufficiency or insufficiency of the
+English alphabet, it is necessary to enumerate the elementary articulate
+sounds of the language. The vowels belonging to the English language are
+the following _twelve_:--
+
+ 1. That of a in _father_. 7. That of e -- _bed_.
+ 2. -- a -- _fat_. 8. -- i -- _pit_.
+ 3. -- a -- _fate_. 9. -- ee -- _feet_.
+ 4. -- aw -- _bawl_. 10. -- u -- _bull_.
+ 5. -- o -- _not_. 11. -- oo -- _fool_.
+ 6. -- o -- _note_. 12. -- u -- _duck_.
+
+The diphthongal sounds are _four_.
+
+ 1. That of ou in _house_.
+ 2. -- ew -- _new_.
+ 3. -- oi -- _oil_.
+ 4. -- i -- _bite_.
+
+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.
+
+ 1. w as in _wet_. 13. th as in _thin_.
+ 2. y -- _yet_. 14. th -- _thine_.
+ 3. m -- _man_. 15. g -- _gun_.
+ 4. n -- _not_. 16. k -- _kind_.
+ 5. l -- _let_. 17. s -- _sin_.
+ 6. r -- _run_. 18. z -- _zeal_.
+ 7. p -- _pate_. 19. sh -- _shine_.
+ 8. b -- _ban_. 20. z -- _azure, glazier_.
+ 9. f -- _fan_. 21. ch -- _chest_.
+ 10. v -- _van_. 22. j -- _jest_.
+ 11. t -- _tin_. 23. ng -- _king_.
+ 12. d -- _din_. 24. h -- _hot_.
+
+s. 150. Some writers would add to these the additional sound of the _['e]
+ferm['e]_ 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 _['e] ferm['e]_, or _close ['e]_, 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_."
+
+s. 151. 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. This enables us to appreciate--
+
+s. 152. _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.
+
+s. 153. _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 sounds 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.
+
+s. 154. _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 and the same
+sound; whereas they are sounds specifically distinct.
+
+The ch in _chest_ is dealt with as a modification of c (either with the
+power of k or of s); whereas its elements are t and sh.
+
+s. 155. _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 ae and oe, as in _Aeneas_ and _Croesus_, except in
+the way of etymology, are superfluous and redundant.
+
+s. 156. _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 as
+many as three letters c, ae, and oe are retained in the alphabet for
+_etymological purposes only_.
+
+s. 157. 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
+unlearning the sound which we give it in our own, and of learning the sound
+which it bears in the language studied. So it is (amongst many others) with
+the letter j. In English this has the sound of _dzh_, in French of zh, and
+in German of y. From singularity in the use of letters arises inconvenience
+in the study of foreign tongues.
+
+In using j as dzh there is a second objection. It is not only inconvenient,
+but it is theoretically incorrect. 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 in the English alphabet and
+orthography--
+
+_Its convenience or inconvenience in respect to learning foreign
+tongues._--The sound given to the a in _fate_ is singular. Other nations
+sound it as a in _father_.
+
+The sound given to the e, long (or independent), is singular. Other nations
+sound it either as a in _fate_, or as _['e] ferm['e]_.
+
+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 _['o] chiuso_.
+
+The sound given to the u in _duck_ is singular. Other nations sound it as
+the u in _bull_.
+
+The sound given to the ou in _house_ is singular. Other nations, more
+correctly, represent it by au or aw.
+
+The sound given to the w in _wet_ is somewhat singular, but is also correct
+and convenient. With many nations it is not found at all, whilst with those
+where it occurs it has the sound (there or thereabouts) of v.
+
+The sound given to y is somewhat singular. In Danish it has a vowel power.
+In German the semivowel sound is spelt with j.
+
+The sound given to z is not the sound which it has in German and Italian,
+but its power in English is convenient and correct.
+
+The sound given to ch in _chest_ is singular. In other languages it has
+generally a guttural sound; in French that of sh. The English usage is more
+correct than the French, but less correct than the German.
+
+The sound given to j (as said before) is singular.
+
+s. 158. _The historical propriety or impropriety 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 [upsilon], a vowel, and no semivowel. The Danes still use it as such,
+that is, with the power of the German ue.
+
+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 [gamma] and [sigma] and not of the Greek _kappa_.
+
+s. 159. _On certain conventional modes of spelling._--In the Greek language
+the sounds of o in _not_ and of o in _note_ (although allied) are expressed
+by the unlike signs (or letters) [omicron] and [omega], respectively. In
+most other languages the difference between the sounds is considered too
+slight to require for its expression signs so distinct and dissimilar. In
+some languages the difference is neglected altogether. In many, however, it
+is expressed, and that by some modification of the original letter.
+
+Let the sign (-) denote that the vowel over which it stands is long, or
+independent, whilst the sign (U) indicates shortness, or dependence. In
+such a case, instead of writing _not_ and _n[omega]t_, like the Greeks, we
+may write _n[)o]t_ and _n[=o]t_, the sign serving for a fresh letter.
+Herein the expression of the nature of the sound is natural, because the
+natural use of (-) and (U) is to express length or shortness, dependence or
+independence. Now, supposing the broad sound of o to be already
+represented, it is very evident that, of the other two sounds of o, the one
+must be long (independent), and the other short (dependent); and as it is
+only necessary to express one of these conditions, we may, if we choose,
+use the sign (-) alone; its presence denoting length, and its absence
+shortness (independence or dependence).
+
+As signs of this kind, one mark is as good as another; and instead of (-)
+we may, if we chose, substitute such a mark as (') and write _n['o]t_ =
+_n[=o]t_ = _n[omega]t_ = _n[=o]te_; provided only that the sign (')
+expresses no other condition or affection of a sound. This use of the mark
+('), as a sign that the vowel over which it is placed is long
+(independent), is common in many languages. But is this use of (') natural?
+For a reason that the reader has anticipated, it is not natural, but
+conventional. Neither is it convenient. It is used elsewhere not as the
+sign of _quantity_, but as the sign of _accent_; consequently, being placed
+over a letter, and being interpreted according to its natural meaning, it
+gives the idea, not that the syllable is long, but that it is emphatic or
+accented. Its use as a sign of quantity then, would be an orthographical
+expedient, or an inconvenient conventional mode of spelling.
+
+The English language abounds in orthographical expedients; the modes of
+expressing the quantity of the vowels being particularly numerous. To begin
+with these:--
+
+The reduplication of a vowel where there is but one syllable (as in _feet_,
+_cool_), is an orthographical expedient. It merely means that the syllable
+is long (or independent).
+
+The juxtaposition of two different vowels, where there is but one syllable
+(as in _plain_, _moan_), is an 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.
+
+_Caution._--The letters x and q are not orthographical expedients. They are
+orthographical _compendiums_, x = ks, and q = kw.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER IX.
+
+HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE ENGLISH ALPHABET.
+
+s. 160. The preceding chapter has exhibited the theory of a full and
+perfect alphabet; it has shown how far the English alphabet falls short of
+such a standard; and, above all, it has exhibited some of the conventional
+modes of spelling which the insufficiency of alphabets, combined with other
+causes, has engendered. The present chapter gives a _history_ of our
+alphabet, whereby many of its defects are _accounted for_. These defects,
+it may be said, once for all, the English alphabet shares with those of the
+rest of the world; although, with the doubtful exception of the French, it
+possesses them in a higher degree than any.
+
+With few, if any exceptions, _all the modes of writing in the world
+originate_, directly or indirectly, from the Phoenician.
+
+At a certain period the alphabet of Palestine, Phoenicia, and the
+neighboring languages of the Semitic tribes, consisted of _twenty-two_
+separate and distinct letters.
+
+Now the chances are, that, let a language possess as few elementary
+articulate sounds as possible, an alphabet of only _twenty-two_ letters
+will be insufficient.
+
+Hence it may safely be asserted, that the original Semitic alphabet was
+_insufficient_ for even the _Semitic_ languages.
+
+s. 161. 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 to suit. When such is
+the case, alterations are required. The extent to which these alterations
+are made at all, or (if made) made on a right principle varies with
+different languages. Some _adapt_ an introduced alphabet well: others
+badly.
+
+Of the _twenty-two_ Phoenician letters the Greeks took but _twenty-one_.
+The eighteenth letter, _tsadi_ [Hebrew: TS] was never imported into
+Europe.
+
+Compared with the Semitic, the _Old_ Greek alphabet ran thus:--
+
+ _Hebrew._ _Greek._
+
+ 1. [Hebrew: '] [Alpha].
+ 2. [Hebrew: B] [Beta].
+ 3. [Hebrew: G] [Gamma].
+ 4. [Hebrew: D] [Delta].
+ 5. [Hebrew: H] [Epsilon].
+ 6. [Hebrew: W] Digamma.
+ 7. [Hebrew: Z] [Zeta].
+ 8. [Hebrew: CH] [Eta].
+ 9. [Hebrew: T`] [Theta].
+ 10. [Hebrew: Y] [Iota].
+ 11. [Hebrew: K] [Kappa].
+ 12. [Hebrew: L] [Lambda].
+ 13. [Hebrew: M] [Mu].
+ 14. [Hebrew: N] [Nu].
+ 15. [Hebrew: S] [Sigma]?
+ 16. [Hebrew: `] [Omicron].
+ 17. [Hebrew: P] [Pi].
+ 18. [Hebrew: TS] --
+ A letter called
+ 19. [Hebrew: Q] koppa, afterwards
+ ejected.
+ 20. [Hebrew: R] [Rho].
+ 21. [Hebrew: SH] M afterwards [Sigma]?
+ 22. [Hebrew: T] [Tau].
+
+The _names_ of the letters were as follows:
+
+ _Hebrew._ _Greek._
+
+ 1. Aleph Alpha.
+ 2. Beth Baeta.
+ 3. Gimel Gamma.
+ 4. Daleth Delta.
+ 5. He E, _psilon._
+ 6. Vaw _Digamma._
+ 7. Zayn Zaeta.
+ 8. Heth Haeta.
+ 9. Teth Thaeta.
+ 10. Yod I[^o]ta.
+ 11. Kaph Kappa.
+ 12. Lamed Lambda.
+ 13. Mem Mu.
+ 14. Nun Nu.
+ 15. Samech Sigma?
+ 16. Ayn O.
+ 17. Pe Pi.
+ 18. Tsadi ----
+ 19. Kof Koppa, _Archaic_.
+ 20. Resh Rho.
+ 21. Sin San, _Doric_.
+ 22. Tau Tau.
+
+The alphabet of Phoenicia and Palestine being adapted to the language of
+Greece, the first change took place in the manner of writing. The
+Phoenicians wrote from right to left; the Greeks from left to right.
+Besides this, the following principles were recognised;--
+
+a. Letters for which there was no use were left behind. This was the case,
+as seen above, with the eighteenth letter, _tsadi_.
+
+b. Letters expressive of sounds for which there was no precise equivalent
+in Greek, were used with other powers. This was the case with letters 5, 8,
+16, and probably with some others.
+
+c. Letters of which the original sound, in the course of time, became
+changed, were allowed, as it were, to drop out of the alphabet. This was
+the case with 6 and 19.
+
+d. For such simple single elementary articulate sounds as there was no sign
+or letter representant, new signs, or letters, were invented. This
+principle gave to the Greek alphabet the new signs [phi], [chi], [upsilon],
+[omega].
+
+e. The new signs were not mere modifications of the older ones, but totally
+new letters.
+
+All this was correct in principle; and the consequence is, that the Greek
+alphabet, although not originally meant to express a European tongue at
+all, expresses the Greek language well.
+
+s. 162. But it was not from the Greek that our own alphabet was immediately
+derived; although ultimately it is referable to the same source as the
+Greek, viz., the Phoenician.
+
+It was the _Roman_ alphabet which served as the basis to the English.
+
+And it is in the changes which the Phoenician alphabet underwent in being
+accommodated to the Latin language that we must investigate the chief
+peculiarities of the present alphabet and orthography of Great Britain and
+America.
+
+Now respecting the Roman alphabet, we must remember that it was _not_ taken
+_directly_ from the Phoenician; in this important point differing from the
+Greek.
+
+Nor yet was it taken, _in the first instance_, from the Greek.
+
+It had a _double_ origin.
+
+The operation of the principles indicated in s. 161 was a work of the time;
+and hence the older and more unmodified Greek alphabet approached in
+character its Phoenician prototype much more than the later, or modified.
+As may be seen, by comparing the previous alphabets with the common
+alphabets of the Greek Grammar, the letters 6 and 19 occur in the earlier,
+whilst they are missing in the later, modes of writing. On the other hand,
+the _old_ alphabet has no such signs as [phi], [chi], [upsilon], [omega],
+[psi], and [xi].
+
+Such being the case, it is easy to imagine what would be the respective
+conditions of two Italian languages which borrowed those alphabets, the one
+from the earlier, the other from the later Greek. The former would contain
+the equivalents to _vaw_ (6), and _kof_ (19); but be destitute of [phi],
+[chi], &c.; whereas the latter would have [phi], [chi], &c., but be without
+either _vaw_ or _kof_.
+
+Much the same would be the case with any single Italian language which took
+as its basis the _earlier_, but adopted, during the course of time,
+modifications from the _later_ Greek. It would exhibit within itself
+characters common to the two stages.
+
+This, or something very like it, was the case with Roman. For the first two
+or three centuries the alphabet was Etruscan; Etruscan derived _directly_
+from the Greek, and from the _old_ Greek.
+
+Afterwards, however, the later Greek alphabet had its influence, and the
+additional letters which it contained were more or less incorporated; and
+that without effecting the ejection of any earlier ones.
+
+s. 163. With these preliminaries we may investigate the details of the
+Roman alphabet, when we shall find that many of them stand in remarkable
+contrast with those of Greece and Phoenicia. At the same time where they
+differ with them, they agree with the English.
+
+ _Order._ _Roman._ _English._ _Greek._ _Hebrew._
+
+ 1. A A Alpha Aleph.
+ 2. B B Baeta Beth.
+ 3. C C Gamma Gimel.
+ 4. D D Delta Daleth.
+ 5. E E Epsilon He.
+ 6. F F _Digamma_ Vaw.
+ 7. G G -- --
+ 8. H H Haeta Heth.
+ 9. I I I[^o]ta Iod.
+ 10. J J I[^o]ta Iod.
+ 11. K Kappa Kaf.
+ 12. L L Lamda Lamed.
+ 13. M M Mu Mem.
+ 14. N N Nu Nun.
+ 15. O O Omicron Ayn.
+ 16. P P Pi Pe.
+ 17. Q Q _Koppa_ Kof.
+ 18. R R Rho Resh.
+ 19. S S _San_ Sin.
+ 20. T T Tau Tau.
+ 21. U U Upsilon --
+ 22. V V Upsilon --
+ 23. W Upsilon --
+ 24. X X Xi Samech.[43]
+ 25. Y Y Upsilon --
+ 26. Z Z Zaeta Zain.
+
+s. 164. The differences of this table are referable to one of the following
+four heads:--a. Ejection. b. Addition. c. Change of power. d. Change of
+order.
+
+a. _Ejection._--In the first instance, the Italians ejected as unnecessary,
+letters 7,[44] 9, and 11: _zayn_ (_zaeta_), _teth_ (_thaeta_), and _kaf_
+(_kappa_). Either the sounds which they expressed were wanting in their
+language; or else they were expressed by some other letter. The former was
+probably the case with 7 and 9, _zaeta_ and _thaeta_, the latter with 11,
+_kappa_.
+
+b. _Addition._--Out of the Greek _i[^o]ta_, two; out of the Greek
+_upsilon_, four modifications have been evolved; viz., i and j out of
+[iota], and u, v, w, y, out of [upsilon].
+
+c. _Change of power._--Letter 3, in Greek and Hebrew had the sound of the g
+in _gun_; in Latin that of k. The reason for this lies in the structure of
+the Etruscan language. In that tongue the _flat_ sounds were remarkably
+deficient; indeed, it is probable, that that of g was wanting. Its _sharp_
+equivalent, however, the sound of k, was by no means wanting; and the Greek
+_gamma_ was used to denote it. This made the equivalent to k, the third
+letter of the alphabet, as early as the time of the Etruscans.
+
+But the _Romans_ had both sounds, the _flat_ as well as the _sharp_, g as
+well as k. How did they express them? Up to the second Punic War they made
+the rounded form of the Greek [Gamma], out of which the letter C has
+arisen, do double work, and signify k and g equally, just as in the present
+English th is sounded as the Greek [theta],[45] and as dh;[46] in proof
+whereof we have in the Duillian column, MACESTRATOS = MAGISTRATOS, and
+CARTHACINIENSES = CARTHAGINIENSES.
+
+Thus much concerning the power and places of the Latin c, as opposed to the
+Greek [gamma]. But this is not all. The use of _gamma_, with the power of
+k, made _kappa_ superfluous, and accounts for its ejection in the
+_Etruscan_ alphabet; a fact already noticed.
+
+Furthermore, an addition to the Etruscan alphabet was required by the
+existence of the sound of g, in Latin, as soon as the inconvenience of
+using c with a double power became manifest. What took place then? Even
+this. The third letter was modified in form, or became a new letter, c
+being altered into g; and the new letter took its place in the alphabet.
+
+Where was this? As the _seventh_ letter between f (_digamma_) and h
+(_haeta_).
+
+Why? Because it was there where there was a vacancy, and where it replaced
+the Greek _zaeta_, or the Hebrew _zayn_, a letter which, _at that time_,
+was not wanted in Latin.
+
+d. _Change of order._--As far as the letters c and g are concerned, this
+has been explained; and it has been shown that change of order and change
+of power are sometimes very closely connected. All that now need be added
+is, that those letters which were _last_ introduced from the Greek into the
+Roman alphabet, were placed at the end.
+
+This is why u, v, w, and y come after t--the last letter of the original
+Phoenician, and also of the _older_ Greek.
+
+This, too, is the reason for z coming last of all. It was restored for the
+purpose of spelling Greek words. But as its original place had been filled
+up by g, it was tacked on as an appendage, rather than incorporated as an
+element.
+
+X in _power_, coincided with the Greek xi; in _place_, with the Greek
+_khi_. Its _position_ seems to have determined its _form_, which is
+certainly that of X rather than of [Xi]. The full investigation of this is
+too lengthy for the present work.
+
+s. 165. It should be observed, that, in the Latin, the letters have no
+longer any _names_ (like _beth_, _baeta_), except such as are derived from
+their powers (_be_, _ce_).
+
+s. 166. The principles which determined the form of the Roman alphabet
+were, upon the whole, correct; and, hence, the Roman alphabet, although not
+originally meant to express an Italian tongue at all, expressed the
+language to which it was applied tolerably.
+
+On the other hand, there were both omissions and alterations which have had
+a detrimental effect upon the orthography of those other numerous tongues
+to which Latin has supplied the alphabet. Thus--
+
+a. It is a matter of regret, that the differences which the Greeks drew
+between the so-called _long_ and _short_ e and o, was neglected by the
+Latins; in other words, that [omega] was omitted entirely, and [eta]
+changed in power. Had this been the case, all the orthographical expedients
+by which we have to express the difference between the o in _not_, and the
+o in _note_, would have been prevented--_not_, _note_, _moat_--_bed_,
+_bead_, _heel_, _glede_, &c.
+
+b. It is a matter of regret, that such an unnecessary _compendium_ as q =
+cu, or cw, should have been retained from the old Greek alphabet; and,
+still more so, that the equally superfluous x = cs, or ks, should have been
+re-admitted.
+
+c. It is a matter of regret, that the Greek [theta] was not treated like
+the Greek [zeta]. Neither were wanted at first; both afterwards. The
+manner, however, of their subsequent introduction was different. _Zaeta_
+came in as a simple single letter, significant of a simple single sound.
+_Thaeta_, on the contrary, although expressive of an equally simple sound,
+became th. This was a combination rather than a letter; and the error which
+it engendered was great.
+
+It suggested the idea, that a simple sound was a compound one--which was
+wrong.
+
+It further suggested the idea, that the sound of [theta] differed from that
+of [tau], by the addition of h--which was wrong also.
+
+s. 167. The Greek language had a system of sounds different from the
+Phoenician; and the alphabet required modifying accordingly.
+
+The Roman language had a system of sounds different from the Greek and the
+alphabet required modifying accordingly.
+
+This leads us to certain questions concerning the Anglo-Saxon. Had _it_ a
+system of sounds different from the Roman? If so, what modifications did
+the alphabet require? Were such modifications effected? If so, how?
+Sufficiently or insufficiently? The answers are unsatisfactory.
+
+s. 168. The Anglo-Saxon had, even in its earliest stage, the following
+sounds, for which the Latin alphabet had no equivalent signs or letters--
+
+1. The sound of the th in _thin_.
+
+2. The sound of the th in _thine_.
+
+It had certainly these: probably others.
+
+s. 169. Expressive of these, two new signs were introduced, viz., th = th
+in _thin_, and dh = th in _thine_.
+
+W, also evolved out of u, was either an original improvement of the
+Anglo-Saxon orthographists, or a mode of expression borrowed from one of
+the allied languages of the Continent. Probably the latter was the case;
+since we find the following passage in the Latin dedication of Otfrid's
+"Krist:"--"Hujus enim linguae barbaries, ut est inculca et
+indisciplinabilis, atque insueta capi regulari freno grammaticae artis, sic
+etiam in multis dictis scriptu est difficilis propter literarum aut
+congeriem, aut incognitam sonoritatem. Nam interdum tria u u u ut puto
+quaerit in sono; priores duo consonantes, ut mihi videtur, tertium vocali
+sono manente."
+
+This was, as far as it went, correct, so that the Anglo-Saxon alphabet,
+although not originally meant to express a Gothic tongue at all, answered
+the purpose to which it was applied tolerably.
+
+s. 170. Change, however, went on; and the orthography which suited the
+earlier Anglo-Saxon would not suit the later; at any rate, it would not
+suit the language which had become or was becoming, _English_; wherein the
+sounds for which the Latin alphabet had no equivalent signs increase. Thus
+there is at present--
+
+1. The sound of the sh in _shine_.
+
+2. The sound of the z in _azure_.
+
+How are these to be expressed? The rule has hitherto been to denote simple
+single sounds, by simple single signs, and where such signs have no
+existence already, to _originate new ones_.
+
+To _combine existing letters_, rather than to coin a new one, has only been
+done rarely. The Latin substitution of the combination th for the simple
+single [theta], was exceptionable. It was a precedent, however, which now
+begins to be followed generally.
+
+s. 171. It is this precedent which accounts for the absence of any letter
+in English, expressive of either of the sounds in question.
+
+s. 172. Furthermore, our alphabet has not only not increased in proportion
+to our sound-system, but it has _decreased_. The Anglo-Saxon th = the th in
+_thin_, and dh = the th in _thine_, have become obsolete; and a difference
+in pronunciation, which our ancestors expressed, _we_ overlook.
+
+The same precedent is at the bottom of this; a fact which leads us to--
+
+s. 173. _The Anglo-Norman alphabet._--The Anglo-Saxon language was
+_Gothic_; the alphabet, _Roman_.
+
+The Anglo-Norman language was _Roman_; the alphabet, _Roman_ also.
+
+The Anglo-Saxon took his speech from one source; his writing from another.
+
+The Anglo-Norman took both from the same.
+
+In adapting a Latin alphabet to a Gothic language, the Anglo-Saxon allowed
+himself more latitude than the Anglo-Norman. We have seen that the new
+signs th and dh were Anglo-Saxon.
+
+Now the sounds which these letters represent did not occur in the
+Norman-French, consequently the Norman-French alphabet neither had nor
+needed to have signs to express them; until after the battle of Hastings,
+_when it became the Anglo-Norman of England_.
+
+_Then_, the case became altered. The English language influenced the Norman
+orthography, and the Norman orthography the English language; and the
+result was, that the simple single correct and distinctive signs of the
+Anglo-Saxon alphabet, became replaced by the incorrect and indistinct
+combination th.
+
+This was a loss, both in the way of theoretical correctness and
+perspicuity.
+
+Such is the general view of the additions, ejections, changes of power, and
+changes of order in the English alphabet. The extent, however, to which an
+alphabet is faulty, is no measure of the extent to which an orthography is
+faulty; since an insufficient alphabet may, by consistency in its
+application, be more useful than a full and perfect alphabet unsteadily
+applied.
+
+s. 174. One of our orthographical expedients, viz., the reduplication of
+the consonant following, to express the shortness (dependence) of the
+preceding vowel, is as old as the classical languages: _terra_, [Greek:
+thalassa]. Nevertheless, the following extract from the "Ormulum" (written
+in the thirteenth century) is the fullest recognition of the practice that
+I have met with.
+
+ And whase wilenn shall this boc,
+ Efft otherr sithe writenn,
+ Himm bidde icc thatt hett write rihht,
+ Swa sum thiss boc himm taechethth;
+ All thwerrt utt affterr thatt itt iss
+ Oppo thiss firrste bisne,
+ Withth all swilc rime als her iss sett,
+ Withth alse fele wordess:
+ And tatt he loke well thatt he
+ _An boc-staff write twiggess_,[47]
+ Eggwhaer thaer itt uppo thiss boc
+ Iss writenn o thatt wise:
+ Loke he well thatt hett write swa,
+ Forr he ne magg noht elless,
+ On Englissh writenn rihht te word,
+ thatt wite he well to sothe.
+
+s. 175. _The order of the alphabet._--In the history of our alphabet, we
+have had the history of certain changes in the arrangement, as well as of
+the changes in the number and power of its letters. The following question
+now presents itself: viz., Is there in the order of the letters any
+_natural_ arrangement, or is the original as well as the present succession
+of letters arbitrary and accidental? The following facts suggest an answer
+in the affirmative.
+
+The order of the Hebrew alphabet is as follows:--
+
+ _Name._ _Sound._
+
+ 1. _Aleph_ Either a vowel or a breathing.
+ 2. _Beth_ B.
+ 3. _Gimel_ G, as in _gun_.
+ 4. _Daleth_ D.
+ 5. _He_ Either a vowel or an aspirate.
+ 6. _Vaw_ V.
+ 7. _Zayn_ Z.
+ 8. _Kheth_ a variety of K.
+ 9. _Teth_ a variety of T.
+ 10. _Yod_ I.
+ 11. _Caph_ K.
+ 12. _Lamed_ L.
+ 13. _Mem_ M.
+ 14. _Nun_ N.
+ 15. _Samech_ a variety of S.
+ 16. _Ayn_ Either a vowel or ----?
+ 17. _Pe_ P.
+ 18. _Tsadi_ TS.
+ 19. _Kof_ a variety of K.
+ 20. _Resh_ R.
+ 21. _Sin_ S.
+ 22. _Tau_ T.
+
+Let _beth_, _vaw_, and _pe_ (b, v, p) constitute a series called series P.
+Let _gimel_, _kheth_, and _kof_ (g, kh, k') constitute a series called
+series K. Let _daleth_, _teth_, and _tau_, (d, t', t) constitute a series
+called series T. Let _aleph_, _he_, and _ayn_ constitute a series called
+the vowel series. Let the first four letters be taken in their order.
+
+ 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 T. 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
+series T, is farthest from it, and _kof_, of series K, is intermediate.
+
+If this be the case, and, if the letters, so to say, _circulate_, the
+alterations made in their order during the transfer of their alphabet from
+Greece to Rome, have had the unsatisfactory effect of concealing an
+interesting arrangement, and of converting a real, though somewhat complex
+regularity, into apparent hazard and disorder.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+QUESTIONS.
+
+ 1. Explain the terms _sharp_, _explosive_, _true aspirate_, _apparent
+ aspirate_, _broad_, _dependent_.
+
+ 2. Exhibit the difference between the quantity of _syllables_ and the
+ quantity of _vowels_.
+
+ 3. Accentuate the following words,--_attribute_ (_adjective_), _survey_
+ (_verb_), _August_ (_the month_).
+
+ 4. Under what conditions is the _sound_ of consonants doubled?
+
+ 5. Exhibit, in a tabular form, the relations of the a) mutes, b) the
+ vowels, underlining those which do not occur in English.
+
+ 6. What is the power of ph in _Philip_? what in _haphazard_? Illustrate
+ the difference fully.
+
+ 7. Investigate the changes by which the words _picture_, _nature_,
+ derived from the Latin _pictura_ and _natura_, are _sounded pictshur_
+ and _natshur_.
+
+ 8. How do you sound the combination apd? Why?
+
+ 9. In what points is the English alphabet _insufficient_, _redundant_,
+ and _inconsistent_?
+
+ 10. Why is z (_zaeta_), which is the sixth letter in the Greek, the
+ last in the English alphabet?
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+PART IV.
+
+ETYMOLOGY.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+CHAPTER I.
+
+ON THE PROVINCE OF ETYMOLOGY.
+
+s. 176. The word etymology, derived from the Greek, in the current language
+of scholars and grammarians, has a double meaning. At times it is used in a
+wide, and at times in a restricted sense.
+
+If in the English language we take such a word as _fathers_, we are enabled
+to divide it into two parts; in other words, to reduce it into two
+elements. By comparing it with the word _father_, we see that the s is
+neither part nor parcel of the original word. Hence the word is capable of
+being analysed; _father_ being the original primitive word, and s the
+secondary superadded termination. From the word _father_, the word
+_fathers_ is _derived_, or (changing the expression) deduced, or descended.
+What has been said of the word _fathers_ may also be said of _fatherly_,
+_fatherlike_, _fatherless_, &c. Now, from the word _father_, all these
+words (_fathers_, _fatherly_, _fatherlike_, and _fatherless_) differ in
+form and in meaning. To become such a word as _fathers_, &c., the word
+_father_ is _changed_. Of changes of this sort, it is the province of
+etymology to take cognizance.
+
+s. 177. 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 is found much earlier, under different forms, and in
+different languages. Thus, in the Latin language, the form was _pater_; in
+Greek, [Greek: pater]. Now, with _father_ and _fathers_, the change takes
+place within the same language, whilst the change that takes place between
+_pater_ and _father_ takes place within different languages. Of changes of
+this latter kind it is, also, the province of etymology to take cognizance.
+
+s. 178. 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.
+
+s. 179. It must be again repeated that the two sorts of etymology agree in
+one point, viz., in taking cognizance of the _changes of forms 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_.
+
+With these preliminaries we may understand Dr. Johnson's explanation of the
+word etymology.
+
+"ETYMOLOGY, n. s. (_etymologia_, Lat.) [Greek: etumos] (_etymos_) _true,
+and_ [Greek: logos] (_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.
+
+s. 180. How far is there such a thing as _gender_ in the English language?
+This depends upon the meaning that we attach to the word.
+
+In the Latin language we have the words _taurus_ = _bull_, and _vacca_ =
+_cow_. Here the natural distinction of _sex_ is expressed by _wholly_
+different words. With this we have corresponding modes of expression in
+English: e.g.,
+
+ _Male._ _Female._ | _Male._ _Female._
+ |
+ Bachelor Spinster. | Horse Mare.
+ Boar Sow. | Ram Ewe.
+ Boy Girl. | Son Daughter.
+ Brother Sister. | Uncle Aunt.
+ Buck Doe. | Father Mother, &c.
+
+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.
+
+s. 181. Neither are words like _cock-sparrow_, _man-servant_, _he-goat_,
+&c., as compared with _hen-sparrow_, _maid-servant_, _she-goat_, &c.,
+specimens of _gender_. Here a difference of sex is indicated by the
+addition of a fresh term, from which is formed a compound word.
+
+s. 182. In the Latin words _genitrix_ = _a mother_, and _genitor_ = _a
+father_, we have a nearer approach to _gender_. Here the difference of sex
+is expressed by a difference of termination; the words _genitor_ and
+_genitrix_ being in a true etymological relation, i.e., either derived from
+each other, or from some common source. With this we have, in English
+corresponding modes of expression: e.g.
+
+ _Male._ _Female._ | _Male._ _Female._
+ |
+ Actor Actress. | Lion Lioness.
+ Arbiter Arbitress. | Peer Peeress.
+ Baron Baroness. | Poet Poetess.
+ Benefactor Benefactress. | Sorcerer Sorceress.
+ Count Countess. | Songster Songstress.
+ Duke Duchess. | Tiger Tigress.
+
+s. 183. This, however, in strict grammatical language, is an approach to
+gender rather than _gender_ itself; the difference from true grammatical
+gender being as follows:--
+
+Let the Latin words _genitor_ and _genitrix_ be declined:--
+
+ _Sing. Nom._ Genitor Genitrix.
+ _Gen._ Genitor-is Genitric-is.
+ _Dat._ Genitor-i Genitric-i.
+ _Acc._ Genitor-em Genitric-em.
+ _Voc._ Genitor Genitrix.
+ _Plur. Nom._ Genitor-es Genitric-es.
+ _Gen._ Genitor-um Genitric-um.
+ _Dat._ Genitor-ibus Genitric-ibus.
+ _Acc._ Genitor-es Genitric-es.
+ _Voc._ Genitor-es Genitric-es.
+
+The syllables in italics are the signs of the cases and numbers. Now those
+signs are the same in each word, the difference of meaning (or sex) not
+affecting them.
+
+s. 184. Contrast, however, with the words _genitor_ and _genitrix_ the
+words _domina_ = _a mistress_, and _dominus_ = _a master_.
+
+ _Sing. Nom._ Domin-a Domin-us.
+ _Gen._ Domin-ae Domin-i.
+ _Dat._ Domin-ae Domin-o.
+ _Acc._ Domin-am Domin-um.
+ _Voc._ Domin-a Domin-e.
+ _Plur. Nom._ Domin-ae Domin-i.
+ _Gen._ Domin-arum Domin-orum.
+ _Dat._ Domin-abus Domin-is.
+ _Acc._ Domin-as Domin-os.
+ _Voc._ Domin-ae Domin-i.
+
+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.
+
+s. 185. 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_.
+
+s. 186. The second element in the notion of gender, although I will not
+venture to call it an essential one, is the following:--In the words
+_domina_ and _dominus_, _mistress_ and _master_, there is a _natural_
+distinction of sex; the one being masculine, or male, the other feminine,
+or female. In the words _sword_ and _lance_ there is _no natural_
+distinction of sex. Notwithstanding this, the word _hasta_, in Latin, is as
+much of the feminine gender as _domina_, whilst _gladius_ = _a sword_ is,
+like _dominus_, a masculine noun. From this we see that, in languages
+wherein there are true genders, a fictitious or conventional sex is
+attributed even to inanimate objects; in other words, _sex_ is a natural
+distinction, _gender_ a grammatical one.
+
+s. 187. In s. 185 it is written, 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 sentence was
+intentionally worded with caution. Words like _dominus_ and _domina_, that
+is, words where the declension is affected by the sex, _are_ to be found
+_even in English_.
+
+The pronoun _him_, from the Anglo-Saxon and English _he_, as compared with
+the pronoun _her_, from the Anglo-Saxon _he['o]_, is affected in its
+declension by the difference of sex, and is a true, though fragmentary,
+specimen of gender. The same is the case with the form _his_ as compared
+with _her_.
+
+The pronoun _it_ (originally _hit_), as compared with _he_, is a specimen
+of gender.
+
+The relative _what_, as compared with the masculine _who_, is a specimen of
+gender.
+
+The forms _it_ (for _hit_) and _he_ are as much genders as _hoc_ and _hic_,
+and the forms _hoc_ and _hic_ are as much genders as _bonum_ and _bonus_.
+
+s. 188. The formation of the neuter gender by the addition of -t, in words
+like _wha-t_, _i-t_, and _tha-t_, occurs in other languages. The -t in
+_tha-t_ is the -d in _istu-d_, Latin, and the -t in _ta-t_, Sanskrit.
+
+s. 189. In the Moeso-Gothic and Scandinavian, the _adjectives_ form the
+neuters in -t, in Old High German in -z (ts), and in Modem German in -s
+(derived from -z)--Moeso-Gothic, _blind-ata_; Icel., _blind-t_; Old High
+German, _plint-ez_, M. G. _blind-es_ = _caec-um_.
+
+_Caution._--_Which_, is _not_ the neuter of _who_.
+
+s. 190. Just as there are in English fragments of a gender modifying the
+declension, so are there, also, fragments of the second element of gender;
+viz., the attribution of sex to objects naturally destitute of it. _The sun
+in _his_ glory_, _the moon in _her_ wane_, are examples of this. A sailor
+calls his ship _she_. A husbandman, according to Mr. Cobbett, does the same
+with his _plough_ and working implements:--"In speaking of a _ship_ we say
+_she_ and _her_. And you know that our country-folks in Hampshire call
+almost every thing _he_ or _she_. It is curious to observe that country
+labourers give the feminine appellation to those things only which are more
+closely identified with themselves, and by the qualities or conditions of
+which their own efforts, and their character as workmen, are affected. The
+mower calls his _scythe_ a _she_, the ploughman calls his _plough_ a _she_;
+but a prong, or a shovel, or a harrow, which passes promiscuously from hand
+to hand, and which is appropriated to no particular labourer, is called a
+_he_."--"English Grammar," Letter v.
+
+s. 191. 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 feminine, pronoun, as is done in the
+expressions quoted in the last section; still less will it account for the
+circumstance of the Germans reversing the gender, and making the _sun_
+feminine, and the _moon_ masculine.
+
+s. 192. Let there be a period in the history of a language 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 time when dead things
+are personified, and when there is a _mythology_. Let an object like the
+_sun_ be deemed a _male_, and an object like the _moon_, a _female_, deity.
+We may then understand the origin of certain genders.
+
+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, M[^a]ni (Moon), and a
+daughter, S[^o]l (Sun)._"--Such is an extract out of an Icelandic
+mythological work, viz., the prose Edda. In the classical languages,
+however, _Phoebus_ and _Sol_ are masculine, and _Luna_ and _Diana_
+feminine. Hence it is that, although in Anglo-Saxon and Old-Saxon the _sun_
+is _feminine_, it is in English _masculine_.
+
+_Philosophy_, _charity_, &c., or the names of abstract qualities
+personified, take a conventional sex, and are feminine from their being
+feminine in Latin.
+
+As in all these words there is no change of form, the consideration of them
+is a point of rhetoric, rather than of etymology.
+
+s. 193. The remainder of this chapter is devoted to miscellaneous remarks
+upon the true and apparent genders of the English language.
+
+1. With the false genders like _baron_, _baroness_, it is a general rule
+that the feminine form is derived from the masculine, and not the masculine
+from the feminine; as _peer_, _peeress_. The words _widower_, _gander_, and
+_drake_ are exceptions. For the word _wizard_, from _witch_, see the
+section on augmentative forms.
+
+2. The termination -ess, in which so large a portion of our feminine
+substantives terminate, is not of Saxon but of classical origin, being
+derived from the termination -ix, _genitrix_.
+
+3. The words _shepherdess_, _huntress_, and _hostess_ are faulty; the
+radical part of the word being Germanic, and 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, is current in German, as the equivalent to -ess,
+and as a feminine affix (_freund_ = _a friend_; _freundinn_ = _a female
+friend_). In English it occurs only in a fragmentary form;--e.g., in
+_vixen_, a true feminine derivative from _fox_ = _fuechsinn_, German.
+
+_Bruin_ = _the bear_, may be either a female form, as in Old High German
+_pero_ = _a he-bear_, _pirinn_ = _a she-bear_; or it may be the Norse form
+_bjoern_ = _a bear_, male or female.
+
+_Caution._--Words like _margravine_ and _landgravine_ prove nothing, being
+scarcely naturalised.
+
+5. The termination -str, as in _webster_, _songster_, and _baxter_, was
+originally a feminine affix. Thus, in Anglo-Saxon,
+
+ Sangere, _a male singer_ } { Sangestre, _a female singer_.
+ Bacere, _a male baker_ } were { Bacestre, _a female baker_.
+ Fidhelere, _a male fiddler_ } opposed { Fidhelstre, _a female fiddler_.
+ Vebbere, _a male weaver_ } to { Vebbestre, _a female weaver_.
+ Raedere, _a male reader_ } { Raedestre, _a female reader_.
+ Seamere, _a male seamer_ } { Seamestre, _a female seamer_.
+
+The same is the case in the present Dutch of Holland: e.g., _spookster_ =
+_a female fortune-teller_; _baxster_ = _a baking-woman_; _waschster_ = _a
+washerwoman_. The word _spinster_ still retains its original feminine
+force.
+
+6. The words _songstress_ and _seamstress_, besides being, as far as
+concerns the intermixture of languages, in the predicament of
+_shepherdess_, have, moreover, a double feminine termination; 1st. -str, of
+Germanic, 2nd. -ess, of classical, origin.
+
+7. In the word _heroine_ we have a Greek termination, just as -ix is a
+Latin, and -inn a German one. It must 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 _deaconness_ is not wholly unexceptionable; since the
+termination -ess is of Latin, the root _deacon_ of Greek origin: this Greek
+origin being rendered all the more conspicuous by the spelling, _deacon_
+(from _diaconos_), as compared with the Latin _decanus_.
+
+9. _Goose, gander_.--One peculiarity in this pair of words has already been
+indicated. In the older forms of the word _goose_, such as [Greek: chen],
+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 [Greek: odous], [Greek: odontos],
+Greek; _dens_, _dentis_, Latin; _zahn_, German; _tooth_, English, we find
+the analogy that accounts for the ejection of the n, and the lengthening of
+the vowel preceding. With respect, however, to the d in _gander_, it is not
+easy to say whether it is inserted in one word or omitted in the other.
+Neither can we give the precise power of the -er. The following forms occur
+in the different Gothic dialects. _Gans_, fem.; _ganazzo_, masc., Old High
+German--_g[^o]s_, f.; _gandra_, m., Anglo-Saxon--_g[^a]s_, Icelandic, f.;
+_gaas_, Danish, f.; _gassi_, Icelandic, m.; _gasse_, Danish, m.--_ganser_,
+_ganserer_, _gansart_, _gaenserich_, _gander_, masculine forms in different
+New German dialects.
+
+10. Observe, the form _gaenserich_, has a masculine termination. The word
+_taeuberich_, in provincial New German, has the same form and the same
+power. It denotes a _male dove_; _taube_, in German, signifying a _dove_.
+In _gaenserich_ and _taeuberich_, 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 _aentrecht_, from whence come the
+English and Low German form, _drake_.
+
+11. _Peacock_, _peahen_.--In these compounds, it is not the word _pea_ that
+is rendered masculine or feminine by the addition of _cock_ and _hen_, but
+it is the words _cock_ and _hen_ that are modified by prefixing _pea_.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER III.
+
+THE NUMBERS.
+
+s. 194. In the Greek language the word _pataer_ signifies a _father_,
+denoting _one_, whilst _patere_ signifies _two fathers_, denoting a pair,
+and thirdly, _pateres_ signifies _fathers_, speaking of any number beyond
+two. The three words, _pataer_, _patere_, and _pateres_, are said to be in
+different numbers, the difference of meaning being expressed by a
+difference of form. These numbers have names. The number that speaks of
+_one_ is the _singular_, the number that speaks of _two_ is the _dual_
+(from the Latin word _duo_ = _two_), and the number that speaks of _more
+than two_ is the _plural_.
+
+All languages have numbers, but all languages have not them to the same
+extent. The Hebrew has a dual, but it is restricted to nouns only. It has,
+moreover, this peculiarity; it applies, for the most part, only to things
+which are naturally double, as _the two eyes_, _the two hands_, &c. The
+Latin has no dual number, except the _natural_ one in the words _ambo_ and
+_duo_.
+
+s. 195. The question presents itself,--to what extent have we numbers in
+English? Like the Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, we have a singular and a
+plural. Like the Latin, and unlike the Greek and Hebrew, we have no dual.
+
+s. 196. 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 _typt[^o]_ = _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
+number is spread over a greater extent of the language than in the Hebrew.
+
+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.
+
+s. 197. 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.
+
+s. 198. Respecting the formation of the plural, the current rule is, that
+it is formed from the singular by adding s, as _father_, _fathers_. This,
+however, is by no means a true expression. The letter s added to the word
+_father_, making it _fathers_, is s to the _eye_ only. To the _ear_ it is
+z. The word sounds _fatherz_. If the s retained its sound the spelling
+would be _fatherce_. In _stags_, _lads_, &c., the sound is _stagz_, _ladz_.
+The rule, then, for the formation of the English plurals, rigorously,
+though somewhat lengthily expressed, is as follows.--_The plural is formed
+from the singular, by adding to words ending in a vowel, a liquid or flat
+mute, the flat lene sibilant (z); and to words ending in a sharp mute, the
+sharp lene sibilant (s):_ e.g. (the sound of the word being expressed),
+_pea_, _peaz_; _tree_, _treez_; _day_, _dayz_; _hill_, _hillz_; _hen_,
+_henz_; _gig_, _gigz_; _trap_, _traps_; _pit_, _pits_; _stack_, _stacks_.
+
+s. 199. Upon the formation of the English plural some further remarks are
+necessary.
+
+a. In the case of words ending in b, v, d, the th in _thine_ = dh, 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,
+adhs, ags, being unpronounceable.
+
+b. Whether the first of the two mutes should be accommodated to the second
+(aps, afs, ats, aths, aks), or the second to the first (abz, avz, adz,
+adhz, agz), is determined by _the habit of the particular language_ in
+question; and, with a few _apparent_ exceptions it is the rule of the
+English language to accommodate the second sound to the first, and not
+_vice vers[^a]_.
+
+c. Such combinations as _peas_, _trees_, _hills_, _hens_, &c., (the s
+preserving its original power, and being sounded as if written _peace_,
+_treece_, _hillce_, _hence_), being pronounceable, the change from s to z,
+in words so ending, is _not_ a matter determined by the necessity of the
+case, but by the habit of the English language.
+
+d. Although the vast majority of our plurals ends, not in s, but in z, the
+original addition was not z, but s. This we infer from three facts: 1. From
+the spelling; 2. from the fact of the sound of z being either rare or
+non-existent in Anglo-Saxon; 3. from the sufficiency of the causes to bring
+about the change.
+
+It may now be seen that some slight variations in the form of our plurals
+are either mere points of orthography, or else capable of being explained
+on very simple euphonic principles.
+
+s. 200. _Boxes, churches, judges, lashes, kisses, blazes, princes_.--Here
+there is the addition, not of the mere letter s, but of the syllable -es.
+As s cannot be immediately added to s, the intervention of a vowel becomes
+necessary; and that all the words whose plural is formed in -es really end
+either in the sounds of s, or in the allied sounds of z, sh, or zh, may be
+seen by analysis; since x = ks, ch = tsh, and j or ge = dzh, whilst ce, in
+_prince_, is a mere point of orthography for s.
+
+_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 _pens_,
+sounded _penz_. That its sense is _collective_ rather than _plural_, 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_ (_diz_) for
+coining. _Dice_, perhaps, like _pence_, is collective rather than plural.
+
+In _geese_, _lice_, and _mice_, we have, apparently, the same phenomenon as
+in _dice_, viz., a sharp sibilant (s) where a _flat_ one (z) is expected.
+The s, however, in these words is not the sign of the plural, but the last
+letter of the original word.
+
+_Alms_.--This is no true plural form. The s belongs to the original word,
+Anglo-Saxon, _aelmesse_; Greek, [Greek: eleemosune]; just as the s in
+_goose_ does. How far the word, although a true singular in its form, may
+have a collective signification, and require its verb to be plural, is a
+point not of etymology, but of syntax. The same is the case with the word
+_riches_, from the French _richesse_. In _riches_ the last syllable being
+sounded as ez, increases its liability to pass for a plural.
+
+_News_, _means_, _pains_.--These, the reverse of _alms_ and _riches_, are
+true plural forms. How far, in sense, they are singular is a point not of
+etymology, but of syntax.
+
+_Mathematics_, _metaphysics_, _politics_, _ethics_, _optics_,
+_physics_.--The following is an exhibition of my hypothesis respecting
+these words, to which I invite the reader's criticism. All the words in
+point are of Greek origin, and all are derived from a Greek adjective. Each
+is the name of some department of study, of some art, or of some science.
+As the words are Greek, so also are the sciences which they denote, either
+of Greek origin, or else such as flourished in Greece. Let the arts and
+sciences of Greece be expressed in Greek, rather by a substantive and an
+adjective combined, than by a simple substantive; for instance, let it be
+the habit of the language to say _the musical art_, rather than _music_.
+Let the Greek for _art_ be a word in the feminine gender; e.g., [Greek:
+techne] (_tekhnae_), so that the _musical art_ be [Greek: he mousike
+techne] (_hae mousikae tekhnae_). Let, in the progress of language (as was
+actually the case in Greece), the article and substantive be omitted, so
+that, for the _musical art_, or for _music_, there stand only the feminine
+adjective, [Greek: mousike]. Let there be, upon a given art or science, a
+series of books, or treatises; the Greek for _book_, or _treatise_, being a
+neuter substantive, [Greek: biblion] (_biblion_). Let the substantive
+meaning _treatise_ be, in the course of language, omitted, so that whilst
+the science of physics is called [Greek: phusike] (_fysikae_), physic, from
+[Greek: he phusike techne], a series of treatises (or even chapters) upon
+the science shall be called [Greek: phusika] (_fysika_) or physics. Now all
+this was what happened in Greece. The science was denoted by a feminine
+adjective singular, as [Greek: phusike] (_fysicae_), and the treatises upon
+it, by the neuter adjective plural, as [Greek: phusika] (_fysika_). The
+treatises of Aristotle are generally so named. To apply this, I conceive,
+that in the middle ages a science of Greek origin might have its name drawn
+from two sources, viz., from the name of the art or science, or from the
+name of the books wherein it was treated. In the first case it had a
+singular form, as _physic_, _logic_; in the second place a plural form, as
+_mathematics_, _metaphysics_, _optics_.
+
+In what number these words, having a collective sense, require their verbs
+to be, is a point of syntax.
+
+s. 201. The plural form _children_ (_child-er-en_) requires particular
+notice.
+
+In the first place it is a double plural; the -en being the -en in _oxen_,
+whilst the simpler form _child-er_ occurs in the old English, and in
+certain provincial dialects.
+
+Now, what is the -er in _child-er_?
+
+In Icelandic, no plural termination is commoner than that in -r; as
+_geisl-ar_ = _flashes_, _tung-ur_ = _tongues_, &c. Nevertheless, it is not
+the Icelandic that explains the plural form in question.
+
+Besides the word _childer_, we collect from the Old High German the
+following forms in -r:--
+
+ Hus-ir, _Houses_,
+ Chalp-ir, _Calves_,
+ Lemp-ir, _Lambs_,
+ Plet-ir, _Blades of grass_,
+ Eig-ir, _Eggs_,
+
+and others, the peculiarity of which is the fact of their all being _of the
+neuter gender_.
+
+Now, the theory respecting this form which is propounded by Grimm is as
+follows:--
+
+1. The -r represents an earlier -s.
+
+2. Which was, originally, no sign of a plural number, but merely a neuter
+derivative affix, common to the singular as well as to the plural number.
+
+3. In this form it appears in the Moeso-Gothic: _ag-is_ = _fear_ (whence
+_ague_ = _shivering_), _hat-is_ = _hate_, _riqv-is_ = _smoke_ (_reek_). In
+none of these words is the -s radical, and in none is it limited to the
+singular number.
+
+To these doctrines, it should be added, that the reason why a singular
+derivational affix should become the sign of the plural number, lies, most
+probably, in the _collective_ nature of the words in which it occurs:
+_Husir_ = _a collection of houses_, _eiger_ = _a collection of eggs_,
+_eggery_ or _eyry_. In words like _yeoman-r-y_ and _Jew-r-y_, the -r has,
+probably, the same origin, and is _collective_.
+
+In Wicliffe we find the form _lamb-r-en_, which is to _lamb_ as _children_
+is to _child_.
+
+s. 202. _The form in -en._--In the Anglo-Saxon no termination of the plural
+number is more common than -n: _tungan_, tongues; _steorran_, stars. Of
+this termination we have evident remains in the words _oxen_, _hosen_,
+_shoon_, _eyne_, words more or less antiquated. This, perhaps, is _no_ true
+plural. In _welk-in_ = _the clouds_, the original singular form is lost.
+
+s. 203. _Men_, _feet_, _teeth_, _mice_, _lice_, _geese_.--In these we have
+some of the oldest words in the language. If these were, to a certainty,
+true plurals, we should have an appearance somewhat corresponding to the
+so-called _weak_ and _strong_ tenses of verbs; viz., one series of plurals
+formed by a change of the vowel, and another by the addition of the
+sibilant. The word _kye_, used in Scotland for _cows_, is of the same
+class. The list in Anglo-Saxon of words of this kind is different from that
+of the present English.
+
+ _Sing._ _Plur._
+
+ Fre['o]nd Fr['y]nd _Friends_.
+ Fe['o]nd Fynd _Foes_.
+ Niht Niht _Nights_.
+ B['o]c B['e]c _Books_.
+ Burh Byrig _Burghs_.
+ Br['o]c Br['e]c _Breeches_.
+ Turf T['y]rf _Turves_.
+
+s. 204. _Brethren_.--Here there are two changes. 1. The alteration of the
+vowel. 2. The addition of -en. Mr. Guest quotes the forms _brethre_ and
+_brothre_ from the Old English. The sense is collective rather than plural.
+
+_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.
+
+ _Lussurioso._--What? three-and-twenty years in law!
+
+ _Vendice._--I have known those who have been five-and-fifty, and all
+ about _pullen_ and pigs.--"Revenger's Tragedy," iv. 1.
+
+If this were a plural form, it would be a very anomalous one. The -en,
+however, is no more a sign of the plural than is the -es in _rich-es_
+(_richesse_.) The proper form is in -ain or -eyn.
+
+ A false theefe,
+ That came like a false fox, my _pullain_ to kill and mischeefe.
+ "Gammer Gurton's Needle," v. 2.
+
+_Chickens_.--A third variety of the double inflection (en + s), with the
+additional peculiarity of the form _chicken_ being used, at present, almost
+exclusively in the singular number, although, originally, it was, probably,
+the plural of _chick_. So Wallis considered it:--"At olim etiam per -en vel
+-yn formabant pluralia; quorum pauca admodum adhuc retinemus. Ut, _an ox_,
+_a chick_, pluralitur _oxen_, _chicken_ (sunt qui dicunt in singulari
+_chicken_, et in plurali _chickens_)." _Chick_, _chick-en_, _chick-en-s_.
+
+_Fern_.--According to Wallis the -n in _fer-n_ is the -en in _oxen_, in
+other words a plural termination:--"A _fere_ (_filix_) pluraliter _fern_
+(verum nunc plerumque _fern_ utroque numero dicitur, sed et in plurali
+_ferns_); nam _fere_ et _feres_ prope obsoleta sunt." Subject to this view,
+the word _fer-n-s_ would exhibit the same phenomenon as the word
+_chicken-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 th and dh, 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_."
+
+s. 205. The words sounded _houz-ez_, _padh-z_, _yoodh-z_, taken along with
+the extract from Wallis, lead us to an important class of words.--s. 199 b.
+
+s. 206. Certain words ending in f, like _loaf_, _wife_, &c.
+
+The regular plural of these would be _loafs_, _wifes_, pronounced _loafce_,
+_wifce_, &c.
+
+But this is not the case. The sound added to the final f is the sound of z,
+not that of s.
+
+And the plurals are sounded _loavz_, _wivz_ (_wivez_, _weivz_).
+
+Furthermore, the sound of the final f is changed to that of v; in other
+words, the _first_ of the two letters is accommodated to the second, in
+violation to the rule of s. 199 b.
+
+Can this be explained? Perhaps it can. In the Swedish language the letter f
+has the sound of v; so that _staf_ is sounded _stav_.
+
+Again, in the allied languages the words in question end in the _flat_ (not
+the _sharp_) mute,--_weib_, _laub_, _calb_, _halb_, _stab_, &c. = _wife_,
+_leaf_, _calf_, _half_, _staff_.
+
+This makes it probable that, originally, the f in _wife_, _loaf_, &c. was
+sounded as v; so that the singular forms were _wive_, _loav_.
+
+If so, the _plural is_ perfectly normal; it being the _singular_ form on
+which the irregularity lies.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER IV.
+
+ON THE CASES.
+
+s. 207. The extent to which there are, in the English language, cases,
+depends on the meaning which we attach to the word case. In the term _a
+house of a father_, the idea expressed by the words _of a father_, is an
+idea of relation between them and the word _house_. This idea is an idea of
+property or possession. The relation between the words _father_ and _house_
+may be called the _possessive_ relation. This relation, or connexion,
+between the two words, is expressed by the preposition _of_.
+
+In the term _a father's house_, the idea is, there or thereabouts, the
+same; the relation or connexion between the two words being the same. The
+expression, however, differs. In _a father's house_ the relation, or
+connexion, is expressed, not by a preposition, but by a change of form,
+_father_ becoming _father's_.
+
+_He gave the house to a father_.--Here the words _father_ and _house_ stand
+in another sort of relationship, the relationship being expressed by the
+preposition _to_. The idea _to a father_ differs from the idea _of a
+father_, in being expressed in one way only; viz., by the preposition.
+There is no second mode of expressing it by a change of form, as was done
+with _father's_.
+
+_The father taught the child_.--Here there is neither preposition nor
+change of form. The connexion between the words _father_ and _child_ is
+expressed by the arrangement only.
+
+s. 208. Now if the relation alone between two words constitute a case, the
+words _a child_, _to a father_, _of a father_, and _father's_, are all
+equally cases; of which one may be called the accusative, another the
+dative, a third the genitive, and so on.
+
+Perhaps, however, the relationship alone does not constitute a case.
+Perhaps there is a necessity of either the addition of a preposition (as in
+_of a father_), or of a change in form (as in _father's_). In this case
+(although _child_ be not so) _father's_, _of a father_, and _to a father_,
+are all equally cases.
+
+Now it has long been remarked, that if the use of a preposition constitute
+a case, there must be as many cases in a language as there are
+prepositions, and that "_above a man_, _beneath a man_, _beyond a man_,
+_round about a man_, _within a man_, _without a man_, shall be cases as
+well as _of a man_, _to a man_, and _with a man_."
+
+s. 209. For etymological purposes, therefore, 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.
+
+ _Latin._ _English._
+
+ _Sing. Nom._ _Pater_ _a father._
+ _Gen._ _Patris_ _a father's._
+ _Dat._ _Patri_ _to a father._
+ _Acc._ _Patrem_ _a father._
+ _Abl._ _Patre_ _from a father._
+
+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 the particular word _father_
+we have but two cases, there may not be other words wherein there are more
+than two.
+
+s. 210. Neither does it follow, that because two words may have the _same
+form_ they are necessarily in the _same case_; a remark which leads to the
+distinction between _a real and an accidental identity of form_.
+
+In the language of the Anglo-Saxons the genitive cases of the words
+_smidh_, _ende_, and _daeg_, were respectively, _smidhes_, _endes_, and
+_daeges_; whilst the nominative plurals were, _smidhas_, _endas_, and
+_daegas_.
+
+But when a change took place, by which the vowel of the last syllable in
+each word was ejected, the result was, that the forms of the genitive
+singular and the nominative plural, originally different, became one and
+the same; so that the identity of the two cases is an accident.
+
+This fact relieves the English grammarian from a difficulty. The nominative
+plural and the genitive singular are, in the present language of England,
+identical; the apostrophe in _father's_ being a mere matter of orthography.
+However, there was _once_ a difference. This modifies the previous
+statement, which may now stand thus:--_for a change of case there must be a
+change of form existing or presumed_.
+
+s. 211. _The number of our cases and the extent of language over which they
+spread._--In the English language there is undoubtedly a _nominative_ case.
+This occurs in substantives, adjectives, and pronouns (_father_, _good_,
+_he_) equally. It is found in both numbers.
+
+s. 212. _Accusative._--Some call this the _objective_ case. The words _him_
+and _them_ (whatever they may have been originally) are now (to a certain
+extent) true accusatives. The accusative case is found in pronouns only.
+_Thee, me, us_, and _you_ are, to a certain extent, true accusatives. These
+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 in the present English is probably a true accusative in the strict
+sense of the term, viz., the word _twain_ = _two_. The -n in _twai-n_ is
+the -n in _hine_ = _him_ and _hwone_ = _whom_. This we see from the
+following inflection:--
+
+ _Neut._ _Masc._ _Fem._
+
+ _N. and Acc._ Tw['a], Tw['e]gen, Tw['a].
+ \____ _____/
+ \/
+ _Abl. and Dat._ Tw['a]m, Twaem.
+ _Gen._ Twegra, Twega.
+
+Although nominative as well as accusative, I have little doubt as to the
+original character of _tw['e]gen_ being accusative. The -n is by no means
+radical; besides which, it _is_ the sign of an accusative case, and is
+_not_ the sign of a nominative.
+
+s. 213. _Dative._--In the antiquated word _whilom_ (_at times_), we have a
+remnant of the old dative in -m. The _sense_ of the word is abverbial; its
+form, however, is that of a dative case.
+
+s. 214. _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_, _princeses_, &c.
+
+s. 215. _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 _thaet, se, se['o]_ (_id, is, ea_), which are
+also used for the article; and _this, thes, the['o]s_ (_hoc, hic, haec_).
+They are thus declined:--
+
+ _Neut._ _Masc._ _Fem._ _Neut._ _Masc._ _Fem._
+
+ _Sing N._ thaet se se['o] this thes the['o]s.
+ _A._ thaet thone th['a] this thisne th['a]s.
+ \____ _____/ \_____ _____/
+ \/ \/
+ _Abl._ th['y] thaere thise thisse.
+ _D._ th['a]m thaere thisum thisse.
+ _G._ thaes thaere thises thisse.
+ \_____ _____/ \_____ _____/
+ \/ \/
+ _Plur. N. and A._ th['a] th['a]s.
+ _Abl. and D._ th['a]m thisum.
+ _G._ th['a]ra. thissa.
+
+"The indeclinable _the_ is often used instead of _thaet, se, se['o]_, in
+all cases, but especially with a relative signification, and, in later
+times, as an article. Hence the English article _the_.
+
+"_th['y]_ seems justly to be received as a proper _ablativus instrumenti_,
+as it occurs often in this character, even in the masculine gender; as,
+_mid th['y] ['a]the_ = _with that oath_ ("Inae Leges," 53). And in the same
+place in the dative, _on thaem ['a]the_ = _in that oath_."--Pp. 56, 57.
+
+Hence the _the_ that has originated out of the Anglo-Saxon _th['y]_ is one
+word; whilst the _the_ that has originated out of the Anglo-Saxon _the_,
+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_ ( = _th['y]_)
+may be seen from the following Anglo-Saxon inflexion of the interrogative
+pronoun:--
+
+ _Neut._ _Masc._
+ _N._ Hwaet Hw['a]
+ _A._ Hwaet Hwone (hwaene).
+ \_____ _____/
+ \/
+ _Abl._ _Hwi_
+ _D._ Hw['a]m (hwaem)
+ _G._ Hwaes.
+
+Hence, then, in _the_ and _why_ we have instrumental ablatives, or, simply,
+_instrumentals_.
+
+s. 216. _The determination of cases._--How do we determine cases? In other
+words, why do we call _him_ and _them_ accusatives rather than datives or
+genitives? By one of two means; viz., either by the _sense_ or the _form_.
+
+Suppose that in the English language there were ten thousand dative cases
+and as many accusatives. Suppose, also, that all the dative cases ended in
+-m, and all the accusatives in some other letter. It is very evident that,
+whatever might be the meaning of the words _him_ and _them_ their form
+would be dative. In this case the meaning being accusatives, and the form
+dative, we should doubt which test to take.
+
+My own opinion is, that it would be convenient to determine cases by the
+_form_ of the word _alone_; so that, even if a word had a dative sense only
+once, where it had an accusative sense ten thousand times, such a word
+should be said to be in the dative case. Now the words _him_ and _them_ (to
+which we may add _whom_) were once dative cases;[48] -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_.
+
+s. 217. _Analysis of cases._--In the word _children's_ we are enabled to
+separate the word into three parts. 1. The root _child_. 2. The plural
+signs r and en. 3. The sign of the genitive case, s. In this case the word
+is said to be analysed, since we not only take it to pieces, but also give
+the respective powers of each of its elements; stating which denotes the
+case, and which the number. Although it is too much to say that the
+analysis of every case of every number can be thus effected, it ought
+always to be attempted.
+
+s. 218. _The true nature of the genitive form in 's._--It is a common
+notion that the genitive form _father's_ is contracted from _father his_.
+The expression in our liturgy, _for Jesus Christ his sake_, which is merely
+a pleonastic one, is the only foundation for this assertion. As the idea,
+however, is not only one of the commonest, but also one of the greatest
+errors in etymology, the following three statements are given for the sake
+of contradiction to it.
+
+1. The expression the _Queen's Majesty_ is not capable of being reduced to
+the _Queen his Majesty_.
+
+2. In the form _his_ itself, the s has precisely the power that it has in
+_father's_, &c. Now _his_ cannot be said to arise out of _he_ + _his_.
+
+3. In the Slavonic, Lithuanic, and classical tongues, the genitive ends in
+s, just as it does in English; so that even if the words _father his_ would
+account for the English word _father's_, it would not account for the
+Sanskrit genitive _pad-as_, of a foot; the Zend _dughdhar-s_, of a
+daughter; the Lithuanic _dugter-s_; the Greek [Greek: odont-os]; the Latin
+_dent-is_, &c.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER V.
+
+THE PERSONAL PRONOUNS.
+
+s. 219. _I_, _we_, _us_, _me_, _thou_, _ye_.--These constitute the true
+personal pronouns. From _he_, _she_, and _it_, they differ in being
+destitute of gender.
+
+These latter words are demonstrative rather than personal, so that there
+are in English true personal pronouns for the first two persons only.
+
+s. 220. 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 it is
+with the rest.
+
+s. 221. _You_.--As far as the practice of the present mode of speech is
+concerned, the word _you_ is a _nominative_ form; since we say _you move_,
+_you are moving_, _you were speaking_.
+
+Why should it not be treated as such? There is no absolute reason why it
+should not. The Anglo-Saxon form for _you_ was _eow_, for _ye_, _ge_.
+Neither bears any sign of case at all, so that, form for form, they are
+equally and indifferently nominative and accusative. Hence, it, perhaps, is
+more logical to say that a certain form (_you_), is used _either_ as a
+nominative or accusative, than to say 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.
+
+s. 222. _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 or equivocal 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.
+
+s. 223. _Caution._--Observe, however, 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.
+
+s. 224. Again: the reasons which allow the form _you_ to be considered as a
+nominative plural, on the strength of its being used for _ye_, will not
+allow it to be considered a nominative singular on the strength of its
+being used for _thou_.
+
+s. 225. In phrases like _you are speaking_, &c., even when applied to a
+single individual, the idea is really plural; in other words, the courtesy
+consists in treating _one_ person as _more than one_, and addressing him as
+such, rather than in using a plural form in a singular sense. It is certain
+that, grammatically considered, _you_ = _thou_ is a plural, since the verb
+with which it agrees is plural:--_you are speaking_, not _you art
+speaking_.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER VI.
+
+ON THE TRUE REFLECTIVE PRONOUN IN THE GOTHIC LANGUAGES, AND ON ITS ABSENCE
+IN ENGLISH.
+
+s. 226. A true reflective pronoun is wanting in English. In other words,
+there are no equivalents to the Latin forms _sui_, _sibi_, _se_.
+
+Nor yet are there any equivalents to the forms _suus, sua, suum_: since
+_his_ and _her_ are the equivalents to _ejus_ and _illius_, and are not
+adjectives but genitive cases.
+
+At the first view, this last sentence seems unnecessary. It might seem
+superfluous to state, that, if there were no such primitive form as _se_,
+there could be no such secondary form as _suus_.
+
+Such, however, is not the case. _Suus_ might exist in the language, and yet
+_se_ be absent; in other words, the derivative form might have continued
+whilst the original one had become extinct.
+
+Such is really the case with the _Old_ Frisian. The reflective personal
+form, the equivalent to _se_, is lost, whilst the reflective possessive
+form, the equivalent to _suus_, is found. In the _Modern_ Frisian, however,
+both forms are lost.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER VII.
+
+THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS, &c.
+
+s. 227. The demonstrative pronouns are, 1. _He, it_. 2. _She_. 3. _This,
+that_. 4. _The_.
+
+_He_, _she_, and _it_, generally looked on as personal, are here treated as
+demonstrative pronouns, for the following reasons.
+
+1. The personal pronouns form an extremely natural class, if the pronouns
+of the two first persons be taken by themselves. This is not the case if
+they be taken along with _he_, _it_, and _she_.
+
+2. The idea expressed by _he_, _it_, and _she_ is naturally that of
+demonstrativeness. In the Latin language _is, ea, id_; _ille, illa, illud_;
+_hic, haec, hoc_, are demonstrative pronouns in sense, as well as in
+declension.
+
+3. The plural forms _they, them_, in the present English, are the plural
+forms of the root of _that_, a true demonstrative pronoun; so that even if
+_he_, _she_, and _it_ could be treated as personal pronouns, _they_ could
+not.
+
+4. The word _she_ has grown out of the Anglo-Saxon _se['o]_. Now _se['o]_
+was in Anglo-Saxon the feminine form of the definite article; the definite
+article itself being originally a demonstrative pronoun.
+
+s. 228. Compared with the Anglo-Saxon the present English stands as
+follows:--
+
+_She_.--The Anglo-Saxon form _he['o]_, being lost to the language, is
+replaced by the feminine article _se['o]_.
+
+s. 229. _Her_.--This is a case, not of the present _she_, but of the
+Anglo-Saxon _he['o]_: so that _she_ may be said to be defective in the
+oblique cases, and _her_ to be defective in the nominative.
+
+_Him_.--A dative form, which has replaced the Anglo-Saxon _hine_. When used
+as a dative, it was neuter as well as masculine.
+
+_His_.--Originally neuter as well as masculine. Now as a neuter, replaced
+by _its_--"et quidem ipsa vox _his_, ut et interrogativum _whose_, nihil
+aliud sunt quam _hee's_, _who's_, ubi s omnino idem praestat 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 linguae; 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.
+
+s. 230. _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, viz.,
+_than_ and _then_ masculine accusative and singular, _there_ feminine
+dative and singular.
+
+s. 231. 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, se['o]_ ( = _she_).
+
+Of this word we meet two forms only, both of the singular number, and both
+in the nominative case; viz., masc., _se_; fem. _se['o]_ ( = the). The
+neuter gender and the other cases of the article were taken from the
+pronoun _thaet_ ( = that).
+
+II.
+
+ _thaet_ ( = that, the), and _this_ ( = this).
+
+ _Neut._ _Masc._ _Fem._ _Neut._ _Masc._ _Fem._
+
+ _Sing. Nom._ _thaet_ -- -- _this_ thes the['o]s.
+ _Acc._ _thaet_ _thone_ th[^a] this thisne th['a]s.
+ _Abl._ _thy_ _thy_ _thaere._ _thise_ thise thisse.
+ _Dat._ th['a]m th['a]m _thaere._ thisum thisum thisse.
+ _Gen._ thaes thaes _thaere._ thises thises thisse.
+ \__________ _________/ \_________ _________/
+ \/ \/
+ _Plur. Nom. Acc._ _th['a]._ _th['a]s._
+ _Abl. Dat._ _th['a]m._ thisum.
+ _Gen._ _th['a]ra._ thissa.
+
+III.
+
+ _Hit_ ( = it), (_he_ = he), _he['o]_ ( = she).
+
+ _Sing. Nom._ _hit_ _he_ he['o].
+ _Acc._ _hit_ hine h['i].
+ _Dat._ _him_ _him_ _hire._
+ _Gen._ _his_ _his_ _hire._
+ \_________ __________/
+ \/
+ _Plur. Nom. Acc._ hi
+ _Dat._ him (heom).
+ _Gen._ hira (heora).
+
+IV.
+
+_the_ (the)--Undeclined, and used for all cases and genders.
+
+s. 232. _These_.--Here observe--
+
+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 _th['a]s_.
+
+These facts create difficulties in respect to the word _these_. Mr. Guest's
+view is, perhaps, the best; viz., that the plural element of the word is
+the final -e, and that this -e is the old English and Anglo-Saxon adjective
+plural; so that _thes-e_ is formed from _this_, as _gode_ ( = _boni_) is
+from _god_ ( = _bonus_).
+
+The nominative plural in the Old English adjective ended in -e; as,
+
+ _Singular._ _Plural._
+ _M._ _F._ _N._ _M._ _F._ _N._
+ _God_, _god_, _god_, _gode_.
+
+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.
+
+ 1. In these lay a gret multitude of _syke_ men, _blinde_, crokid, and
+ _drye_.--_Wicliffe_, Jon. v.
+
+ 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.
+
+ 3. And _al_ the cuntre of Judee wente out to him, and _alle_ men of
+ Jerusalem.--_Wicliffe_, Mark i.
+
+ 4. He ghyueth lif to _alle_ men, and brething, and _alle_ thingis; and
+ made of von _al_ kynde of men to inhabit on _al_ the face of the
+ erthe.--_Wicliffe_, Dedis of Apostlis, xvii.
+
+ 5. That fadres sone which _alle_ thinges wrought;
+ And _all_, that wrought is with a skilful thought,
+ The Gost that from the fader gan procede,
+ Hath souled hem.--_Chau._, The Second Nonnes Tale.
+
+ 6. And _alle_ we that ben in this aray
+ And maken _all_ this lamentation,
+ We losten _alle_ our husbondes at that toun.--_Chau._, The Knightes
+ Tales.
+
+ 7. A _good_ man bryngeth forth _gode_ thingsis of _good_
+ tresore.--_Wicliffe_, Matt. xii.
+
+ 8. So every _good_ tree maketh _gode_ fruytis, but an yvel tree maketh
+ yvel fruytes. A _good_ tree may not mak yvel fruytis, neither an yvel
+ tree may make _gode_ fruytis. Every tree that maketh not _good_ fruyt
+ schal be cut down.--_Wicliffe_, Matt. vii.
+
+ 9. Men loveden more darknessis than light for her werkes weren _yvele_,
+ for ech man that doeth _yvel_, hateth the light.--_Wicliffe_, John iii.
+
+ 10. And _othere_ seedis felden among thornes wexen up and strangliden
+ hem, and _othere_ seedis felden into good lond and gaven fruyt, sum an
+ hundred fold, _another_ sixty fold, an _other_ thritty fold,
+ &c.--_Wicliffe_, Matt. xiii.
+
+ 11. Yet the while he spake to the puple lo _his_ mother and _hise_
+ brethren stonden withoute forth.--_Wicliffe_, Mat. xii.
+
+ 12. And _hise_ disciplis camen and taken _his_ body.--_Wicliffe_,
+ Matt., xiv.
+
+ 13. When _thise_ Bretons tuo were fled out of _this_ lond
+ Ine toke his feaute of alle, &c.--_Rob Brunne_, p. 3.
+
+ 14. _This_ is thilk disciple that bereth witnessyng of _these_ thingis,
+ and wroot them.--_Wicliffe_, John xxi.
+
+ 15. Seye to us in what powers thou doist _these_ thingis, and who is he
+ that gaf to thee _this_ power.--_Wicliffe_, Luke xx.
+
+s. 233. _Those_.--Perhaps the Anglo-Saxon _th['a]_ with s added. Perhaps
+the _th['a]s_ from _this_ with its power altered. Rask, in his Anglo-Saxon
+Grammar, writes "from _this_ we find, in the plural, _thaes_ for _th['a]s_.
+From which afterwards, with a distinction in signification, _these_ and
+_those_." The English form _they_ is illustrated by the Anglo-Saxon form
+_dhage_ = _th['a]_. The whole doctrine of the forms in question has yet to
+assume a satisfactory shape.
+
+The present declension of the demonstrative pronouns is as follows:--
+
+A.
+
+_She_.--Defective in the oblique cases.
+
+B.
+
+_He_.
+
+ _Masc._ _Neut._ _Fem._
+ _Nom._ He It (from _hit_) --
+ _Acc._ Him It Her.
+ _Dat._ Him -- Her.
+ _Gen._ His -- Her.
+ _Secondary Gen._ -- Its Hers.
+
+ No plural form.
+
+C.
+
+I.
+
+_That_.
+
+ _Neut._ _Masc._ _Fem._
+ _Sing. Nom._ That -- --
+ _Acc._ That Than, then[49] --
+ _Dat._ -- -- There.[49]
+ _Instrumental_ _Thence._
+ _Plur. Nom._ They.[50]
+ _Acc._ Them.[50]
+ _Gen._ Their.[50]
+ _Secondary Gen._ Theirs.[50]
+
+II.
+
+_Singular_, This. _Plural_, These.
+
+III.
+
+_Those_.
+
+IV.
+
+_The_--Undeclined.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER VIII.
+
+THE RELATIVE, INTERROGATIVE, AND CERTAIN OTHER PRONOUNS.
+
+s. 234. In the relative and interrogative pronouns, _who_, _what_, _whom_,
+_whose_, we have, expressed by a change of form, a neuter gender, _what_; a
+dative case _whom_; and a genitive case, _whose_: the true power of the s
+(viz., as the sign of a case) being obscured by the orthographical addition
+of the e mute.
+
+To these may be added, 1. the adverb _why_, originally the ablative form
+_hvi_ (_quo modo?_ _qu[^a] vi[^a]?_). 2. The adverb _where_, a feminine
+dative, like _there_. 3. _When_, a masculine accusative (in Anglo-Saxon
+_hwaene_), and analogous to _then_.
+
+The two sounds in the Danish words _hvi_, _hvad_, &c., and the two sounds
+in the English, _what_, _when_ (Anglo-Saxon, _hwaet_, _hwaene_) 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_.
+
+s. 235. The following remarks (some of them not strictly etymological)
+apply to a few of the remaining pronouns.
+
+_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 _m[^i]n l[^i]p_, _d[^i]n l[^i]p_, _my
+body_, _thy body_, equivalent in sense to _myself_, _thyself_.
+
+3. The circumstance that if _self_ be dealt with as a substantive, such
+phrases as _my own self_, _his own great self_, &c., can be used; whereby
+the language is a gainer.
+
+"Vox _self_, pluraliter _selves_, quamvis etiam pronomen a quibusdam
+censeatur (quoniam ut plurimum per Latinum _ipse_ redditur), est tamen
+plane nomen substantivum, cui quidem vix aliquod apud Latinos substantivum
+respondet; proxime tamen accedet vox _persona_ vel _propria persona_ ut _my
+self_, _thy self_, _our selves_, _your selves_, &c. (_ego ipse_, _tu ipse_,
+_nos ipsi_, _vos ipsi_, &c.), ad verbum _mea persona_, _tua persona_, &c.
+Fateor tamen _himself_, _itself_, _themselves_, vulgo dici pro _his-self_,
+_its-self_, _theirselves_; at (interposito _own_) _his own self_, &c.,
+_ipsius propria persona_, &c."--Wallis. c. vii.
+
+4. The fact that many persons actually say _hisself_ and _theirselves_.
+
+_Whit_.--As in the phrase _not a whit_. This enters in the compound
+pronouns _aught_ and _naught_.
+
+_One_.--As in the phrase _one does so and so_. From the French _on_.
+Observe that this is from the Latin _homo_, in Old French _hom_, _om_. In
+the Germanic tongues _man_ is used in the same sense: _man sagt_ = _one
+says_ = _on dit_. _One_, like _self_ and _other_, is so far a substantive,
+that it is inflected. Gen. sing, _one's own self_: plural, _my wife and
+little ones are well_.
+
+_Derived pronouns._--_Any_, in Anglo-Saxon, _aenig_. In Old High German we
+have _ein[^i]c_ = _any_, and _einac_ = _single_. In Anglo-Saxon _[^a]nega_
+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 _[^e]nech_ has both meanings. This
+indicates the word _['a]n_, _one_, as the root of the word in question.
+
+_Compound pronouns._--_Which_, as has been already stated more than once,
+is most incorrectly called the neuter of _who_. Instead of being a neuter,
+it is a compound word. The adjective _leiks_, _like_, is preserved in the
+Moeso-Gothic words _galeiks_ and _missaleiks_. In Old High German the form
+is _lih_, in Anglo-Saxon _lic_. Hence we have Moeso-Gothic _hv[^e]leiks_;
+Old High German, _huelih_; Anglo-Saxon, _huilic_ and _hvilc_; Old Frisian,
+_hwelik_; Danish, _hvilk-en_; German, _welch_; Scotch, _whilk_; English,
+_which_. The same is the case with--
+
+1. _Such_.--Moeso-Gothic, _svaleiks_; Old High German, _s[^o]l[^i]h_; Old
+Saxon, _sul[^i]c_; Anglo-Saxon, _svilc_; German, _solch_; English, _such_.
+Rask's derivation of the Anglo-Saxon _swilc_ from _swa-ylc_, is
+exceptionable.
+
+2. _Thilk_.--An old English word, found in the provincial dialects, as
+_thick_, _thuck_, _theck_, and hastily derived by Tyrwhitt, Ritson, and
+Weber, from _se ylca_, is found in the following forms: Moeso-Gothic,
+_th['e]leiks_; Norse, _thvilikr_.
+
+3. _Ilk_.--Found in the Scotch, and always preceded by the article; _the
+ilk_, or _that ilk_, meaning _the same_. In Anglo-Saxon this word is
+_ycla_, preceded also by the article _se ylca_, _se['o] ylce_, _thaet
+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
+_l[^i]c_ the second element.
+
+_Aught_.--In Moeso-Gothic is found the particle, _aiv_, _ever_, but only in
+negative propositions; _ni_ (_not_) preceding it. Its Old High German form
+is _[^e]o_, _io_; in Middle High German, _ie_; in New High German, _je_; in
+Old Saxon, _io_; in Anglo-Saxon, [^a]; in Norse, ae. Combined with this
+particle the word _whit_ (_thing_) gives the following forms: Old High
+German, _[^e]owiht_; Anglo-Saxon, _[^a]viht_; Old Frisian, _[^a]wet_;
+English _aught_. The word _naught_ is _aught_ preceded by the negative
+particle.
+
+_Each_.--The particle _gi_ enters, like the particle in the composition of
+pronouns. Old High German, _[^e]ogal[^i]her_, every one; _[^e]ocalih_, all;
+Middle High German, _iegelich_; New High German, _jeglich_; Anglo-Saxon,
+_aelc_; English, _each_; the l being dropped, as in _which_ and _such_.
+_Aelc_, as the original of the English _each_ and the Scotch _ilka_,[51]
+must by no means be confounded with the word _ylce_, _the same_.
+
+_Every_ in Old English, _everich_, _everech_, _everilk one_, is _aelc_,
+preceded by the particle _ever_. (Grimm. D. G. iii. 54.)
+
+_Either_.--Old High German, _[^e]ogahuedar_; Middle High German,
+_iegeweder_; Anglo-Saxon, _aeghvaedher_, _aegdher_; Old Frisian, _eider_.
+
+_Neither_.--The same with the negative article prefixed. _Neither_ :
+_either_ :: _naught_ : _aught_.
+
+s. 236. _Other_, _whether_.--These words, although derived forms, being
+simpler than some that have preceded, might fairly have been dealt with
+before. They make, however, a transition from the present to the succeeding
+chapter, and so find a place here.
+
+A. _First_, it may be stated of them that the idea which they express is
+not that of _one out of many_, but that of _one out of two_.
+
+1. In Sanscrit there are two forms, a) _kataras_, the same word as
+_whether_, meaning _which out of two_; b) _katamas, which out of many_. So
+also _[^e]kateras, one out of two_; _[^e]katamas, one out of many_. In
+Greek the Ionic form [Greek: koteros (poteros]; in Latin, _uter_, _neuter_,
+_alter_; and in Moeso-Gothic, _hvathar_, have the same form and the same
+meaning.
+
+2. In the Scandinavian language the word _anden_, Dano-Saxon, _annar_,
+Iceland. corresponds to the English word _second_, and not the German
+_zweite_: e.g., _Karl den Anden, Charles the Second_. Now _anthar_ is the
+older form of _other_.
+
+B. _Secondly_, it may be stated of them, that the termination -er is the
+same termination that we find in the comparative degree.
+
+1. The idea expressed by the comparative degree is the comparison, not of
+_many_ but of _two_ things; _this is better than that_.
+
+2. In all the Indo-European languages where there are pronouns in -ter,
+there is also a comparative degree in -ter. See next chapter.
+
+3. As the Sanscrit form _kataras_ corresponds with the comparative degree,
+where there is the comparison of _two things with each other_; so the word
+_katamas_ is a 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.
+
+s. 237. Preparatory to the consideration of the degrees of comparison, it
+is necessary to make some remarks upon a certain class of words, which,
+with considerable differences of signification, all agree in one fact,
+viz., all terminate in -er, or _t-er_.
+
+1. Certain pronouns, as _ei-th-er_, _n-ei-th-er_, _whe-th-er_, or
+_o-th-er_.
+
+2. Certain prepositions and adverbs, as _ov-er_, _und-er_, _af-t-er_.
+
+3. Certain adjectives, with the form of the comparative, but the power of
+the positive degree; as _upp-er_, _und-er_, _inn-er_, _out-er_, _hind-er_.
+
+4. All adjectives of the comparative degree; as _wis-er_, _strong-er_,
+_bett-er_, &c.
+
+Now what is the idea common to all these words, expressed by the sign -er,
+and connecting the four divisions into one class? It is not the mere idea
+of comparison; although it is the comparative degree, to the expression of
+which the affix in question is more particularly applied. Bopp, who has
+best generalised the view of these forms, considers the fundamental idea to
+be that of _duality_. In the comparative degree we have a relation between
+one object and _some_ other object like it, or a relation between two
+single elements of comparison: _A is wiser than B_. In the superlative
+degree we have a relation between one 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 natural that their
+suffixes should be transferred to other words, whose chief notion is
+individualised through that of duality or plurality."--"Vergleichende
+Grammatik," s. 292, Eastwick's and Wilson's Translation.
+
+The most important proofs of the view adduced by Bopp are,--
+
+1. The Sanskrit form _kataras_ = _which of _two_ persons?_ is a comparative
+form; whilst _katamas_ = _which of more than two persons?_ a superlative
+form. Similarly, _[^e]kataras_ = _one of two persons_; _[^e]katamas_ = _one
+of more than two persons_.
+
+2. The Greek forms, [Greek: hekateros] = _each_ (_or either_) _out of two
+persons_; whilst [Greek: hekastos] = _each or any out of more than two
+persons_.
+
+s. 238. The more important of the specific modifications of the general
+idea involved in the comparison of two objects are,--
+
+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_.
+
+s. 239. _Either_, _neither_, _other_, _whether_.--It has just been stated
+that the general fundamental idea common to all these forms is that of
+_choice between one of two objects in the way of an alternative_. Thus far
+the termination -er in _either_, &c., is the termination -er in the true
+comparatives, _brav-er_, _wis-er_, &c. _Either_ and _neither_ are common
+pronouns. _Other_, like _one_, is a pronoun capable of taking the plural
+form of a substantive (_others_), and also that of the genitive case (_the
+other's money, the other's bread_). _Whether_ is a pronoun in the almost
+obsolete form _whether_ ( = _which_) _of the two do you prefer_, and a
+conjunction in sentences like _whether will you do this or not_? The use of
+the form _others_ is recent. "_They are taken out of the way as all
+other._"--Job. "_And leave their riches for other._"--Psalms.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER X.
+
+THE COMPARATIVE DEGREE.
+
+s. 240. There are four leading facts here,--
+
+1. _The older form in -s._ In English we say old-er, bett-er, sweet-er; in
+Old High German they similarly said, alt-iro, bets-iro, suats-iro; but in
+Moeso-Gothic the forms were ald-iza, bat-iza, sut-iza.
+
+2. _Adverbs_ are susceptible of comparison; e.g.--_Come as soon as you can,
+but do not come sooner than is convenient_.
+
+3. The Anglo-Saxon comparison of the adverbs is different from that of the
+adjectives; there being one form in -re and -este, another in -or and -ost
+respectively. Now the first of these was the form taken by adjectives: as
+_se scearp-re sweord_ = _the sharper sword_, and _se scearp-este sword_ =
+_the sharpest sword_. The second, on the other hand, was the form taken by
+adverbs: as, _se sweord scyrdh scearp-or_ = _the sword cuts sharper_, and
+_se sweord scyrdh scearp-ost_ = _the sword cuts sharpest_.
+
+4. In the Anglo-Saxon, the following words exhibit a change of vowel.
+
+ _Positive._ _Comparative._ _Superlative._
+
+ Lang, Lengre, Lengest. _Long._
+ Strang, Strengre, Strengest. _Strong._
+ Geong, Gyngre, Gyngest. _Young._
+ Sceort, Scyrtre, Scyrtest. _Short._
+ He['a]h, Hyrre, Hyhst. _High._
+ Eald, Yldre, Yldest. _Old._
+
+s. 241. Now the fourth of these facts explains the present forms _elder_
+and _eldest_, the comparatives and superlative of _old_, besides which
+there are the regular forms _old-er_ and _old-est_; between which there is,
+however, a difference in meaning--_elder_ being used as a substantive, and
+having a plural form, _elders_.
+
+s. 242. The abverbial forms in -or and -ost, as compared with the
+adjectival in -re, and -este explain the form _rather_. This rhymes to
+_father_; the a being full. Nevertheless, the positive form is _rather_
+meaning _quick, easy_ = the classical root [Greek: rhad-] in [Greek:
+rhadios]. 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 abverbial, 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, since o being a full vowel, it has the
+effect of making the a full also.
+
+s. 243. The old form in -s will be considered, after notice has been taken
+of what may be called--
+
+s. 244. _Excess of expression._--Of this two samples have already been
+given: 1. in words like _songstress_; 2. in words like _children_. This may
+be called _excess of expression_; the feminine gender, in words like
+_songstress_, and the plural number, in words like _children_, being
+expressed twice over. In the vulgarism _betterer_ for _better_, and in the
+antiquated forms _worser_ for _worse_, and _lesser_ for _less_, we have, in
+the case of the comparatives, as elsewhere, an excess of expression. In the
+old High German we have the forms _betser[^o]ro_, _m[^e]r[^o]ro_,
+_[^e]rerera_ = _better_, _more_, _ere_.
+
+s. 245. _Better_.--Although in the superlative form _best_ there is a
+slight variation from the strict form of that degree, the word _better_ is
+perfectly regular. So far, then, from truth are the current statements that
+the comparison of the words _good, better_, and _best_ is irregular. The
+inflection is not irregular, but defective. As the statement that applies
+to _good_, _better_, and _best_ applies to many words besides, it will be
+well in this place, once for all, to exhibit it in full.
+
+s. 246. _Difference between a sequence in logic and a sequence in
+etymology._--The ideas or notions of _thou, thy, thee_, are ideas between
+which there is a metaphysical or logical connexion. The train of such ideas
+may be said to form a sequence, and such a sequence may be called a logical
+one.
+
+The words _thou, thy, thee_, are words between which there is a _formal_ or
+an _etymological_ connexion. A train of such words may be called a
+sequence, and such a sequence may be called an etymological one.
+
+In the case of _thou, thy, thee_, the etymological sequence tallies with
+the _logical_ one.
+
+The ideas of _I_, _my_, and _me_ are also in a logical sequence: but the
+forms _I_, _my_, and _me_ are not altogether in an etymological one.
+
+In the case of _I, my, me_, the etymological sequence does _not_ tally (or
+tallies imperfectly) with the logical one.
+
+This is only another way of saying that between the words _I_ and _me_
+there is no connexion in etymology.
+
+It is also only another way of saying, that, in the oblique cases, _I_,
+and, in the nominative case, _me_, are _defective_.
+
+Now the same is the case with _good, better_, _bad, worse_, &c. _Good_ and
+_bad_ are defective in the comparative and superlative degrees; _better_
+and _worse_ are defective in the positive; whilst between _good_ and
+_better_, _bad_ and _worse_, there is a sequence in logic, but no sequence
+in etymology.
+
+s. 247. 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_.
+
+s. 248. _Worse_.--This word is one of two things.
+
+1. It is a positive form with a comparative sense; in which case s is part
+of the root.
+
+2. It is a comparative degree from the positive form wor- (vair-, wir-,
+vyr-), in which case s is the s of the Old Moeso-Gothic inflexion preserved
+in this single word.
+
+s. 249. _More_.--In Anglo-Saxon this is _m[^a]_; in the English of the
+reign of Elizabeth it is _moe_; and in certain provincial dialects it is
+_mo_, at the present time.
+
+Notwithstanding this, i.e., the form being positive, the _power_ of the
+word has always been comparative, and meant _more_ rather than _much_, or
+_many_.
+
+s. 250. _Less_.--In Anglo-Saxon _laessa_ and _laes_. Here there is no
+_unequivocal_ sign of the comparative degree; what, then, is the nature of
+the word? Is it a positive form with a comparative power like _moe_? or is
+it an old comparative in -s? This is undecided. What does it come from?
+Grimm derives it from the Moeso-Gothic root _lasiv_ = _weak_. His doctrine
+is doubtful. I cannot but believe that it comes from the same root as
+_litt-le_; where the old Frisian form _litich_, shows that the -l is no
+essential part of the word, and the Danish form _lille_ gets rid of the t.
+Still the word is difficult; indeed it is unexplained.
+
+s. 251. _Near_, _nearer_.--Anglo-Saxon, _neah_; comparative, _nearre_,
+_near_, _nyr_; superlative, _nyhst_, _nehst_. Observe, in the Anglo-Saxon
+positive and superlative, the absence of the r. This shows that the English
+positive _near_ is the Anglo-Saxon comparative _nearre_, and that in the
+secondary comparative _nearer_, we have an _excess of expression_. It may
+be, however, that the r in _near_ is a mere point of orthography, and that
+it is not pronounced; since, in the English language the words _father_ and
+_farther_ are, for the most part, pronounced alike.
+
+s. 252. _Farther_.--Anglo-Saxon _feor, fyrre, fyrrest_. The th seems
+euphonic, inserted by the same process that gives the [delta] in [Greek:
+andros], from [Greek: aner] = man.
+
+_Further_.--Confounded with _farther_, although in reality from a different
+word, _fore_. Old High German, _furdir_; New High German, _der vordere_;
+Anglo-Saxon, _fyrdhre_.
+
+s. 253. _Former_.--A comparative formed from the superlative; _forma_ being
+such. Consequently, an instance of excess of expression, combined with
+irregularity.
+
+s. 254. In Moeso-Gothic _sp[^e]dists_ means _last_, and _sp[^e]diza_ =
+_later_. Of the word _sp[^e]dists_ two views may be taken. According to one
+it is the positive degree with the addition of st; according to the other,
+it is the comparative degree with the addition only of t. Now, Grimm and
+others lay down as a rule, that the superlative is formed, not directly
+from the positive, but indirectly through the comparative.
+
+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 _after_ the establishment of the
+comparative, and _before_ the change of -s into -r.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER XI.
+
+THE SUPERLATIVE DEGREE.
+
+s. 255. The Anglo-Saxon word for _first_ was _for-m-a_.
+
+The root was _for_ = the Latin _prae_, the Greek [Greek: pro], and being
+the same combination which occurs in _fore_, _fore-m-ost_, &c.
+
+The m was the Anglo-Saxon sign of the superlative degree.
+
+It is the m in the Latin words _pri-m-us_, _inti-m-us_, _exti-m-us_,
+_ulti-m-us_, &c.
+
+It occurs even in the Gothic tongues; in other words, besides _for-m-a_.
+
+In short, m is an old sign of the superlative degree; probably older than
+the usual form, -st, discussed in s. 254. This has some important
+applications.
+
+s. 256. _Former_.--This is a remarkable word: it is a comparative derived
+from the Anglo-Saxon superlative, and its analysis is _for-m-er_, with
+_excess of inflexion_.
+
+s. 257. _Nea-r-est_.--Here the r is no part of the original root, as may be
+seen in s. 251. It has grown out of -ah pronounced as the a in _father_.
+The true forms are positive, _neah_; comparative, _neah-er_; superlative,
+_neah-est_. Such, to a certain extent, is really the case.
+
+s. 258. _Next_.--The superlative of _nigh_, contracted from _nigh-est_. The
+Anglo-Saxon forms were _neah_, _nyh-st_, _neh-st_, _nyh-ste_. In
+Anglo-Saxon the letter h was pronounced strongly, and sounded like g or k.
+This fact is still shown in the spelling; as nigh. In the word _next_ this
+sound is preserved, slightly changed into that of k; _next_ = _nek-st_.
+
+s. 259. _Upmost_, &c.--The common statement concerning words like _upmost_
+is, that they are compound words, formed by the addition of the word
+_most_: this, however, is more than doubtful.
+
+The Anglo-Saxon language presents us with the following forms:--
+
+ _Anglo-Saxon._ _English._
+
+ Innema (inn-ema), Inmost (in-m-ost).
+ [^U]tema ([^u]t-ma), Outmost (out-m-ost).
+ Sidhema (sidh-ema), Latest.
+ Laetema (laet-ema), Latest.
+ Nidhema (nidh-ema), Nethermost (neth-er-m-ost).
+ Forma (for-ma), Foremost (fore-m-ost).
+ Aeftema (aft-ema), Aftermost (aft-er-m-ost).
+ Ufema (uf-ema), Upmost (up-m-ost).
+ Hindema (hind-ema), Hindmost (hind-m-ost).
+ Midema (mid-ema), Midmost (mid-m-ost).
+
+Now the words in question show at once, that, as far as they are concerned,
+the m that appears in the last syllable of each has nothing to do with the
+word _most_.
+
+From the words in question there was formed, in Anglo-Saxon, a regular
+superlative form in the usual manner; viz., by the addition of -st; as
+_aefte-m-est_, _fyr-m-est_, _laete-m-est_, _sidh-m-est_, _yfe-m-est_,
+_ute-m-est_, _inne-m-est_.
+
+Hence, in the present English, the different parts of the syllable _most_
+(in words like _upmost_) come from different quarters. The m is the m in
+the Anglo-Saxon words _innema_, &c.; whilst the -st is the common sign of
+the superlative. Hence, in separating such words as _midmost_ into its
+component parts, we should write
+
+ Mid-m-ost _not_ mid-most.
+ Ut-m-ost -- ut-most.
+ Up-m-ost -- up-most.
+ Fore-m-ost -- fore-most.
+ In-m-ost -- in-most.
+ Hind-m-ost -- hind-most.
+ Out-m-ost -- out-most.
+
+s. 260. In certain words, however, the syllable _m-ost_ is added to a word
+already ending in -er; that is, already marked with the sign of the
+comparative degree.
+
+ Neth-er-m-ost. Hind-er-m-ost.
+ Utt-er-m-ost. Out-er-m-ost.
+ Upp-er-m-ost. Inn-er-m-ost.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER XII.
+
+THE CARDINAL NUMBERS.
+
+s. 261. Generally speaking, the greater part of the cardinal numbers are
+undeclined. As far as _number_ goes, this is necessary.
+
+_One_ is naturally and exclusively _singular_.
+
+_Two_ is naturally _dual_.
+
+The rest are naturally and exclusively _plural_.
+
+As to the inflection of gender and case, there is no reason why all the
+numerals should not be as fully inflected as the Latin _unus, una, unum_,
+_unius_. It is a mere habit of our language that they are not so in
+English.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER XIII.
+
+THE ORDINAL NUMBERS.
+
+s. 262. By referring to s. 259, we see that -m was an early sign of the
+superlative degree. This bears upon the numerals _seven_, _nine_, and
+_ten_.
+
+These are _cardinal_ numbers. Nevertheless, the present chapter is the
+proper place for noticing them.
+
+There is good reason for believing that the final -n is no part of the
+original root. Thus,--
+
+a. _Sev-en_ = the Latin _sept-em_, where the -m is equivalent to the -n.
+But in the Greek [Greek: hepta], and the Scandinavian _syv_, and _sju_,
+neither -n nor -m occur.
+
+b. _Ni-ne_.--This same applies here. The Latin form is _nov-em_; but the
+Greek and Norse are [Greek: ennea] and _niu_.
+
+c. _Ten_.--The older form is _ti-h-un_, in Latin _de-c-em_. The English -n
+is the Latin -m. Nevertheless, in the Greek and Norse the forms are [Greek:
+deka] and _tuo_.
+
+s. 263. What explains this? The following hypothesis. Some of the best
+German authorities believe, that the -m, expressive of the superlative
+degree, was also used to denote the _ordinal character_ (_ordinality_) _of
+the numerals_; so that the -m- in _deci-m-us_, was the -m- in _ulti-m-us_
+and _exti-m-us_. This is the first step in the explanation.
+
+s. 264. The next is, to suppose that certain _cardinal_ numerals have taken
+and retained the _ordinal_ form; these being the--
+
+ _Latin._ _English._ _Greek._ _Norse._
+
+ _Sept-em_, _sev-en_, as opposed to the [Greek: hepta] _sjau_.
+ _Nov-em_, _ni-ne_ " " [Greek: ennea] _n['i]u_.
+ _Dec-em_, _te-n_ " " [Greek: deka] _t['i]u_.
+
+I give no opinion as to the accuracy or erroneousness of this view.
+
+s. 265. _Thir-teen_, &c., is _three_ with _ten_ added, or 3 + 10.
+
+s. 266. _Thir-ty_, &c., is _three tens_ (_three decades_), or 3 x 10. In
+Moeso-Gothic we find the -ty in the fuller form _tig_ = [Greek: dek-as] in
+Greek.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER XIV.
+
+THE ARTICLES.
+
+s. 267. In the generality of grammars the definite article _the_, and the
+indefinite article _an_, are the very first parts of speech that are
+considered. This is exceptionable. So far are they from being essential to
+language, that, in many dialects, they are wholly wanting. In Greek there
+is no indefinite, in Latin there is neither an indefinite nor a definite
+article. In the former language they say [Greek: aner tis] = _a certain
+man_: in the latter the words _filius patris_ mean equally _the son of the
+father_, _a son of a father_, _a son of the father_, or _the son of a
+father_. In Moeso-Gothic and in Old Norse, there is an equal absence of the
+indefinite article; or, at any rate, if there be one at all, it is a
+different word from what occurs in English. In these the Greek [Greek: tis]
+is expressed by the Gothic root _sum_.
+
+Now, since it is very evident that, as far as the sense is concerned, the
+words _some man_, _a certain man_, and _a man_, are much the same, an
+exception may be taken to the statement that in Greek and Moeso-Gothic
+there is no indefinite article. It may, in the present state of the
+argument, be fairly said that the words _sum_ and [Greek: tis] are pronouns
+with a certain sense, and that _a_ and _an_ are no more; consequently, that
+in Greek the indefinite article is [Greek: tis], in Moeso-Gothic _sum_, and
+in English _a_ or _an_.
+
+A distinction, however, may be made. In the expression [Greek: aner tis]
+(_anaer tis_) = _a certain man_, or _a man_, and in the expression _sum
+mann_, the words _sum_ and [Greek: tis] preserve their natural and original
+meaning; whilst in _a man_ and _an ox_ the words _a_ and _an_ are used in a
+secondary sense. These words, as is currently known, are one and the same,
+the n, in the form _a_, being ejected through a euphonic process. They are,
+moreover, the same words with the numeral _one_; Anglo-Saxon, _['a]n_;
+Scotch, _ane_. Now, between the words _a man_ and _one man_, there is a
+difference in meaning; the first expression being the most indefinite.
+Hence comes the difference between the English and Moeso-Gothic
+expressions. In the one the word _sum_ has a natural, in the other, the
+word _an_ has a secondary power.
+
+The same reasoning applies to the word _the_. Compared with _a man_, the
+words _the man_ are very definite. Compared, however, with the words _that
+man_, they are the contrary. Now, just as _an_ and _a_ have arisen out of
+the numeral _one_, so has _the_ arisen out of the demonstrative pronoun
+_thaet_, or at least from some common root. It will be remembered that in
+Anglo-Saxon there was a form _the_, 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 [Greek: ho], [Greek: he], [Greek:
+to] (_ho, hae, to_), as the definite articles, the corresponding page in
+the syntax informs us, that, in the oldest stage of the language, [Greek:
+ho] (_ho_) = _the_, had the power of [Greek: houtos] (_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.
+
+s. 268. Compared with the words _lamb_, _man_, and _hill_, the words
+_lambkin_, _mannikin_, and _hillock_ convey the idea of comparative
+smallness or diminution. Now, as the word _hillock_ = _a little hill_
+differs in _form_ from _hill_, we have in English a series of _diminutive_
+forms, or _diminutives_.
+
+The English diminutives may be arranged according to a variety of
+principles. Amongst others:
+
+1. _According to their form._--The word _hillock_ is derived from _hill_,
+by the _addition_ of a _syllable_. The word _tip_ is derived from _top_, by
+the _change_ of a _vowel_.
+
+2. _According to their meaning._--In the word _hillock_ there is the simple
+expression of comparative smallness in size. In the word _doggie_ for
+_dog_, _lassie_ for _lass_, the addition of the -ie makes the word not so
+much a diminutive as a term of tenderness or endearment. The idea of
+smallness, accompanied, perhaps, with that of neatness, generally carries
+with it the idea of approbation; hence, the word _clean_ in English, means,
+in German, _little_ = _kleine_. The feeling of protection which is extended
+to small objects engenders the notion of endearment.
+
+s. 269. The Greek word [Greek: meiosis] (_mei[^o]sis_) means diminution;
+the Greek word [Greek: hupokorisma] (_hypokorisma_) 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.
+
+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.
+
+s. 270. The diminutive forms of Gothic origin are the first to be
+considered.
+
+1. _Those formed by a change of vowel._--_Tip_, from _top_. The relation of
+the feminine to the masculine is allied to the ideas conveyed by many
+diminutives. Hence in the word _kit_, from _cat_, it is doubtful whether
+there be meant a female cat or a little cat. _Kid_ is a diminutive form of
+_goat_.
+
+2. _Those formed by the addition of a letter or letters._--Of the
+diminutive characteristics thus formed the commonest, beginning from the
+simpler forms, are
+
+Ie.--Almost peculiar to the Lowland Scotch; as _daddie_, _lassie_,
+_minnie_, _wifie_, _mousie_, _doggie_, _boatie_, &c.
+
+Ock.--_Bullock_, _hillock_.
+
+Kin.--_Lambkin_, _mannikin_, _ladikin_, &c. As is seen above, common in
+proper names.
+
+En.--_Chicken_, _kitten_, from _cock_, _cat_. The notion of diminution, if
+indeed that be the notion originally conveyed, lies not in the -en, but in
+the vowel. In the word _chicken_, from _cock_, observe the effect of the
+small vowel on the c.
+
+The consideration of words like _duckling_, and _gosling_, is purposely
+deferred.
+
+The chief diminutive of classical origin is--
+
+_Et_, as in _trumpet_, _lancet_, _pocket_; the word _pock_, as in
+_meal-pock_ = _a meal-bag_, being found in the Scottish. From the French
+-ette, as in _caissette_, _poulette_.
+
+The forms -rel, as in _cockerel_, _pickerel_, and -let, as in _streamlet_,
+require a separate consideration. The first has nothing to do with the
+Italian forms _acquerella_ and _coserella_--themselves, perhaps, of Gothic,
+rather than of classical origin.
+
+In the Old High-German there are a multitude of diminutive forms in -el; as
+_ouga_ = _an eye_, _ougili_ = _a little eye_; _lied_ = _a song_, _liedel_ =
+_a little song_. This indicates the nature of words like _cockerel_.
+
+Even in English the diminutive power of -el can be traced in the following
+words:--
+
+_Soare_ = a deer in its third year. _Sor-rel_--a deer in its second
+year.--See "Love's Labour Lost," with the note.
+
+_Tiercel_ = a small sort of hawk, one-third less (_tierce_) than the common
+kind.
+
+_Kantle_ = _small corner_, from _cant_ = _a corner_.--"Henry IV."
+
+_Hurdle_; in Dutch _horde_; German, _hurde_. _Hording_, without the -l, is
+used in an allied sense by builders in English.
+
+In the words in point we must assume an earlier form, _cocker_ and _piker_,
+to which the diminutive form -el is affixed. If this be true, we have, in
+English, representatives of the diminutive form -el so common in the High
+Germanic dialects. _Wolfer_ = _a wolf_, _hunker_ = _a haunch_, _flitcher_ =
+_a flitch_, _teamer_ = _a team_, _fresher_ = _a frog_,--these are north
+country forms of the present English.
+
+The termination -let, as in _streamlet_, seems to be double, and to consist
+of the Gothic diminutive -l, and the French diminutive -t.
+
+s. 271. _Augmentatives._--Compared with _capello_ = _a hat_, the Italian
+word _capellone_ = _a great hat_, is an augmentative. The augmentative
+forms, pre-eminently common in the Italian language, often carry with them
+a depreciating sense.
+
+The termination -rd (in Old High German, -hart), as in _drunkard_,
+_braggart_, _laggard_, _stinkard_, carries with it this idea of
+depreciation. In _buzzard_, and _reynard_, the name of the fox, it is
+simply augmentative. In _wizard_, from _witch_, it has the power of a
+masculine form.
+
+The termination -rd, taken from the Gothic, appears in the modern languages
+of classical origin: French, _vieillard_; Spanish, _codardo_. From these we
+get, at secondhand, the word _coward_.
+
+The word _sweetheart_ is a derived word of this sort, rather than a
+compound word; since in Old High German and Middle High German, we have the
+corresponding form _liebhart_. Now the form for _heart_ is in German not
+_hart_, but _herz_.
+
+Words like _braggadocio_, _trombone_, _balloon_, being words of foreign
+origin, prove nothing as to the further existence of augmentative forms in
+English.
+
+s. 272.--_Patronymics._--In the Greek language the notion of _lineal
+descent_, in other words, the relation of the son to the father, is
+expressed by a particular termination; as [Greek: Peleus] (_Peleus_),
+[Greek: Peleides] (_Peleidaes_), the son of Peleus. It is very evident that
+this mode of expression is very different from either the English form
+_Johnson_ = _the son of John_, or the Gaelic _MacDonald_ = _the son of
+Donald_. In these last-named words, the words _son_ and _Mac_ mean the same
+thing; so that _Johnson_ and _MacDonald_ are not _derived_ but _compound_
+words. This Greek way of expressing descent is peculiar, and the words
+wherein it occurs are classed together by the peculiar name _patronymic_;
+from _pataer_ = _a father_, and _onoma_ = _a name_.
+
+Is there anything in English corresponding to the Greek patronymics?
+
+Not in the _present_ English? There was, however, in the Anglo-Saxon.
+
+In the Anglo-Saxon, the termination -ing is as truly patronymic as [Greek:
+-ides] 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 waes Eopping_, _Eoppa Esing_, _Esa Inging_, _Inga
+Angenviting_, _Angenvit Alocing_, _Aloc Beonocing_, _Beonoc Branding_,
+_Brand Baeldaeging_, _Baeldaeg V['o]dening_, _V['o]den Fridhowulfing_,
+_Fridhowulf Finning_, _Finn Godwulfing_, _Godwulf Geating_ = Ida was the
+son of Eoppa, Eoppa of Esa, Esa of Inga, Inga of Angenvit, Angenvit of
+Aloc, Aloc of Beonoc, Beonoc of Brand, Brand of Baeldaeg, Baeldaeg of
+Woden, Woden of Fridhowulf, Fridhowulf of Finn, Finn of Godwulf, Godwulf of
+Geat.--In Greek, [Greek: Ida en Eoppeides, Eoppa Eseides, Esa Ingeides,
+Inga Angenphiteides], &c. In the plural number these forms denote the _race
+of_; as _Scyldingas_ = _the Scyldings_, or the race of _Scyld_, &c. Edgar
+Atheling means Edgar of the race of the nobles.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER XVI.
+
+GENTILE FORMS.
+
+s. 273. 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_, from
+_wealh_ = _a foreigner_, the name by which the Welsh are spoken of by the
+Germans of England, just as the Italians are called Welsh by the Germans of
+Germany; and just as _wal-nuts_ = _foreign nuts_, or _nuces Galliae_.
+_Welsh_ = _weall-isc_ = _foreign_, and is a derived adjective.
+
+3. The transfer of the name of the _people_ inhabiting a certain country to
+the _country_ so inhabited, was one of the commonest processes in both
+Anglo-Saxon and Old English.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER XVII.
+
+ON THE CONNEXION BETWEEN THE NOUN AND VERB, AND ON THE INFLECTION OF THE
+INFINITIVE MOOD.
+
+s. 274. In order to understand clearly the use of the so-called infinitive
+mood in English, it is necessary to bear in mind two facts, one a matter of
+_logic_, the other a matter of _history_.
+
+In the way of _logic_, the difference between a noun and a verb is less
+marked than it is in the way of _grammar_.
+
+Grammatically, the contrast is considerable. The inflection of nouns
+expresses the ideas of sex as denoted by gender, and of relation in place
+as denoted by cases. That of verbs rarely expresses sex, and never
+relations in place. On the other hand, however, it expresses what no noun
+ever does or can express; e.g., the relation of the agency to the
+individual speaking, by means of _person_; the time in which acts take
+place, by means of _tense_; and the conditions of their occurrence, by
+means of _mood_.
+
+The idea of _number_ is the only one that, on a superficial view, is common
+to these two important parts of speech.
+
+s. 275. Logically, however, 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.
+
+s. 276. A noun is a word capable of _declension_ only. A verb is a word
+capable of declension and _conjugation_ also. The fact of verbs being
+declined as well as conjugated must be remembered. _The participle has the
+declension of a noun adjective, the infinitive mood the declension of a
+noun substantive. Gerunds and supines, in languages where they occur, are
+only names for certain cases of the verb._
+
+s. 277. Although in all languages the verb is equally capable of
+declension, it is not equally declined. The Greeks, for instance, used
+forms like
+
+ [Greek: to phthonein] = _invidia_.
+ [Greek: tou phthonein] = _invidiae_.
+ [Greek: en toi phthonein] = _in invidia_.
+
+s. 278. Returning, however, to the illustration of the substantival
+character of the so-called infinitive mood, we may easily see--
+
+[alpha]. That the name of any action may be used without any mention of the
+agent. Thus, we may speak of the simple fact of _walking_ or _moving_,
+independently of any specification of the _walker_ or _mover_.
+
+[beta]. 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.
+
+[gamma]. 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_.
+
+s. 279. 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.
+
+The inflection of the verb in its impersonal (or infinitive state)
+consisted, in its fullest form, of three cases, a nominative (or
+accusative), a dative, and a genitive. The genitive is put last, because
+its occurrence in the Gothic languages is the least constant.
+
+In Anglo-Saxon the nominative (or accusative) ended in -an, with a single
+n.
+
+ Lufian = _to love_ = _amare_.
+ Baernan = _to burn_ = _urere_.
+ Syllan = _to give_ = _dare_.
+
+In Anglo-Saxon the dative of the infinitive verb ended in -nne, and was
+preceded by the preposition _to_.
+
+ To lufienne = _ad amandum_.
+ To baernenne = _ad urendum_.
+ To syllanne = _ad dandum_.
+
+The genitive, ending in -es, occurs only in Old High German and Modern High
+German, _pl[^a]sannes_, _weinnenes_.
+
+s. 280. With these preliminaries we can take a clear view of the English
+infinitives. They exist under two forms, and are referable to a double
+origin.
+
+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 -nne.
+
+s. 281. 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.
+
+s. 282. Of the divisions of verbs into active and passive, transitive and
+intransitive, unless there be an accompanying change of _form_, etymology
+takes no cognisance. The forces of the auxiliary verbs, and the tenses to
+which they are equivalent, are also points of syntax rather than of
+etymology.
+
+Four classes, however, of _derived_ verbs, as opposed to _simple_,
+especially deserve notice.
+
+I. Those ending in -en; as _soften_, _whiten_, _strengthen_, &c. Here the
+-en is a derivational affix; and not a representative of the Anglo-Saxon
+infinitive form -an (as _lufian_, _baernan_ = _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.
+
+ _Primitive Intransitive Form._ _Derived Transitive Form._
+
+ Rise Raise.
+ Lie Lay.
+ Sit Set.
+ Fall Fell.
+ Drink Drench.
+
+In Anglo-Saxon these words were more numerous than they are at present.
+
+ _Intrans. Infinitive._ _Trans. Infinitive._
+
+ Yrnan, _to run_ Aernan, _to make to run_.
+ Byrnan, _to burn_ Baernan, _to make to burn_.
+ Drincan, _to drink_ Drencan, _to drench_.
+ Sincan, _to sink_ Sencan, _to make to sink_.
+ Liegan, _to lie_ Lecgan, _to lay_.
+ Sittan, _to sit_ Settan, _to set_.
+ Dr['i]fan, _to drift_ Draefan, _to drive_.
+ Feallan, _to fall_ Fyllan, _to fell_.
+ Weallan, _to boil_ Wyllan, _to make to boil_.
+ Fleogan, _to fly_ A-fligan, _to put to flight_.
+ Beogan, _to bow_ B['i]gan, _to bend_.
+ Faran, _to go_ Feran, _to convey_.
+ Wacan, _to wake_ Weccan, _to waken_.
+
+All these intransitives form their praeterite by a change of vowel; as
+_sink_, _sank_; all the transitives by the addition of d or t, as _sell_,
+_sell'd_.
+
+III. Verbs derived from nouns by a change of accent; as _to surv['e]y_,
+from a _s['u]rvey_.
+
+ _Nouns._ _Verbs._ | _Nouns._ _Verbs._
+ |
+ ['A]bsent abs['e]nt. | ['E]xtract extr['a]ct.
+ ['A]bstract abstr['a]ct. | F['e]rment ferm['e]nt.
+ ['A]ccent acc['e]nt. | Fr['e]quent frequ['e]nt.
+ ['A]ffix aff['i]x. | ['I]mport imp['o]rt.
+ A['u]gment augm['e]nt. | ['I]ncense inc['e]nse.
+ C['o]lleague coll['e]ague. | ['I]nsult ins['u]lt.
+ C['o]mpact comp['a]ct. | ['O]bject obj['e]ct.
+ C['o]mpound comp['o]und. | P['e]rfume perf['u]me.
+ C['o]mpress compr['e]ss. | P['e]rmit perm['i]t.
+ C['o]ncert conc['e]rt. | Pr['e]fix pref['i]x.
+ C['o]ncrete concr['e]te. | Pr['e]mise prem['i]se.
+ C['o]nduct cond['u]ct. | Pr['e]sage pres['a]ge.
+ C['o]nfine conf['i]ne. | Pr['e]sent pres['e]nt.
+ C['o]nflict confl['i]ct. | Pr['o]duce prod['u]ce.
+ C['o]nserve cons['e]rve. | Pr['o]ject proj['e]ct.
+ C['o]nsort cons['o]rt. | Pr['o]test prot['e]st.
+ C['o]ntract contr['a]ct. | R['e]bel reb['e]l.
+ C['o]ntrast contr['a]st. | R['e]cord rec['o]rd.
+ C['o]nverse conv['e]rse. | R['e]fuse ref['u]se.
+ C['o]nvert conv['e]rt. | S['u]bject subj['e]ct.
+ D['e]scant desc['a]nt. | S['u]rvey surv['e]y.
+ D['e]sert des['e]rt. | T['o]rment torm['e]nt.
+ D['i]gest dig['e]st. | Tr['a]nsfer transf['e]r.
+ ['E]ssay ess['a]y. | Tr['a]nsport transp['o]rt.
+
+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,
+
+ _The_ use _to_ use, _pronounced_ uze.
+ _The_ breath _to_ breathe -- breadhe.
+ _The_ cloth _to_ clothe -- clodhe.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER XIX.
+
+ON THE PERSONS.
+
+s. 283. Compared with the Latin, the Greek, the Moeso-Gothic, and almost
+all the ancient languages, there is, in English, in respect to the persons
+of the verbs, but a very slight amount of inflection. This may be seen by
+comparing the English word _call_ with the Latin _voco_.
+
+ _Sing._ _Plur._ | _Sing._ _Plur._
+ 1. Voc-o Voc-amus. | Call Call.
+ 2. Voc-as Voc-atis. | Call-est Call.
+ 3. Voc-at Voc-ant. | [52]Call-eth Call.
+
+Here the Latins have different forms for each different person, whilst the
+English have forms for two only; and even of these one (_callest_) is
+becoming obsolete. With the forms voc-o, voc-amus, voc-atis, voc-ant, there
+is, in the current English, nothing correspondent.
+
+In the word _am_, as compared with _are_ and _art_, we find a sign of the
+first person singular.
+
+In the old forms _tellen_, _weren_, &c., we have a sign of the plural
+number.
+
+s. 284. 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:--
+
+ _Present Tense, Indicative Mood._
+
+ _Moeso-Gothic._
+
+ _1st person._ _2nd person._ _3rd person._
+
+ _Singular._ S[^o]kja S[^o]keis S[^o]keith--_seek_.
+ _Plural._ S[^o]kjam S[^o]keith Sokjand.
+
+ _Old High German._
+
+ _Singular._ Prennu Prenn[^i]s Prennit--_burn_.
+ _Plural._ Prennames Prennat Prennant.
+
+ _Icelandic._
+
+ _Singular._ Kalla Kallar Kallar--_call_.
+ _Plural._ K[^o]llum Kallith Kalla.
+
+ _Old Saxon._
+
+ _Singular._ S[^o]kju S[^o]k[^i]s S[^o]k[^i]d--_seek_.
+ _Plural._ S[^o]kjad S[^o]kjad S[^o]kjad.
+
+ _Anglo-Saxon._
+
+ _Singular._ Lufige Lufast Lufadh.
+ _Plural._ Lufiadh Lufiadh Lufiadh.
+
+ _Old English._
+
+ _Singular._ Love Lovest Loveth.
+ _Plural._ Loven Loven Loven.
+
+ _Modern English._
+
+ _Singular._ Love Lovest Loveth (or Loves).
+ _Plural._ Love Love Love.
+
+s. 285. 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 -adh 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
+_s[^o]kjam_ 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.
+
+s. 286. _The person in -t._--The forms _art_, _wast_, _wert_, _shalt_,
+_wilt_, or _ar-t_, _was-t_, _wer-t_, _shal-t_, _wil-t_, are remarkable.
+Here the second person singular ends, not in -st, but in t. The reason for
+this is to be sought in the Moeso-Gothic and the Icelandic.
+
+In those languages the form of the person changes with the tense, and the
+second singular of the praeterite tense of one conjugation is, not -s, but
+-t; as Moeso-Gothic, _sv[^o]r_ = _I swore_, _sv[^o]rt_ = _thou swarest_,
+_gr['a]ip_ = _I griped_, _gr['a]ipt_ = _thou gripedst_; Icelandic, _brannt_
+= _thou burnest_, _gaft_ = _thou gavest_. In the same languages ten verbs
+are conjugated like praeterites. Of these, in each language, _skal_ is one.
+
+ _Moeso-Gothic._
+
+ _Singular._ _Dual._ _Plural._
+
+ 1. Skal Skulu Skulum.
+ 2. Skalt Skuluts Skuluth.
+ 3. Skall Skuluts Skulun.
+
+ _Icelandic._
+
+ _Singular._ _Plural._
+
+ 1. Skall Skulum.
+ 2. Skalt Skuludh.
+ 3. Skal Skulu.
+
+s. 287. _Thou spakest_, _thou brakest_, _thou sungest_.[53]--
+
+In these forms there is a slight though natural anomaly. They belong to the
+class of verbs which form their praeterite by changing the vowel of the
+present; as _sing_, _sang_, &c. Now, all words of this sort in Anglo-Saxon
+formed their second singular praeterite, not in -st, but in -e; as _th['u]
+funde_ = _thou foundest_, _th['u] sunge_ = _thou sungest_. The English
+termination is derived from the present. Observe that this applies only to
+the praeterites formed by changing the vowel. _Thou loved'st_ is
+Anglo-Saxon as well as English, viz., _th['u] lufodest_.
+
+s. 288. In the northern dialects of the Anglo-Saxon the -dh of plurals like
+_lufiadh_ = _we love_ becomes -s. In the Scottish this change was still
+more prevalent:
+
+ 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.
+
+s. 289. As compared with the present plural forms, _we love_, _ye love_,
+_they love_, the Anglo-Saxons had the truly plural forms, _we lufiadh_, _ge
+lufiadh_, _hi lufiadh_. The Old English also had a true plural inflection
+_we loven_, _ye loven_, _they loven_. The present English wants both the
+form in -en, and the form in -adh. In other words, the Anglo-Saxon and the
+Old English have a plural _personal_ characteristic, whilst the Modern
+English has nothing to correspond with it.
+
+s. 290. In the forms _luf-iadh_, and _lov-en_, the change from singular to
+plural is made by adding a syllable; but there is no reason against the
+inflection 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, just as is the case with the form
+_speak, spoke_; _fall, fell_.
+
+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._
+
+ Sk['a]in, _I shone_; skinum, _we shone_.
+ Sm['a]it, _I smote_; smitum, _we smote_.
+ K['a]us, _I chose_; kusum, _we chose_.
+ L['a]ug, _I lied_; lugum, _we lied_.
+ Gab, _I gave_; g[^e]bum, _we gave_.
+ At, _I ete_; ['e]tum, _we ete_.
+ Stal, _I stole_; st['e]lum, _we stole_.
+ Qvam, _I came_; qy[^e]mum, _we came_.
+
+_Anglo-Saxon._
+
+ Arn, _I ran_; urnon, _we run_.
+ Ongan, _I began_; ongunnon, _we begun_.
+ Span, _I span_; spunnon, _we spun_.
+ Sang, _I sang_; sungon, _we sung_.
+ Swang, _I swang_; swangon, _we swung_.
+ Dranc, _I drank_; druncon, _we drunk_.
+ Sanc, _I sank_; suncon, _we sunk_.
+ Sprang, _I sprang_; sprungon, _we sprung_.
+ Swam, _I swam_; swummon, _we swum_.
+ Rang, _I rang_; rungon, _we rung_.
+
+From these examples the reader has himself drawn his inference; viz. that
+words like
+
+ _Began_, _begun_.
+ _Ran_, _run_.
+ _Span_, _spun_.
+ _Sang_, _sung_.
+ _Swang_, _swung_.
+ _Sprang_, _sprung_.
+ _Sank_, _sunk_.
+ _Swam_, _swum_.
+ _Rang_, _rung_.
+ _Bat_, _bit_.
+ _Smote_, _smit_.
+ _Drank_, _drunk_, &c.,
+
+generally called double forms of the past tense, were originally _different
+numbers of the same tense_, the forms in a, as _swam_, being singular, and
+the forms in u, as _swum_, plural.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER XXI.
+
+ON MOODS.
+
+s. 291. The Anglo-Saxon infinitive has already been considered.
+
+Between the second plural imperative, and the second plural indicative,
+_speak ye_, and _ye speak_, there is no difference of form.
+
+Between the second singular imperative _speak_, and the second singular
+indicative, _speakest_, there is a difference in form.
+
+Still, as the imperative form _speak_ is distinguished from the indicative
+form _speakest_ by the _negation_ of a character rather than by the
+possession of one, it cannot be said that there is in English any
+imperative mood.
+
+s. 292. _If he speak_, as opposed to _if he speaks_, is characterized by a
+negative sign only, and consequently is no true example of a subjunctive.
+_Be_, as opposed to _am_, in the sentence _if it be so_, is a fresh word
+used in a limited sense, and consequently no true example of a subjunctive.
+It is a different word altogether, and is only the subjunctive of _am_, in
+the way _puss_ is the vocative of _cat_.
+
+The only true subjunctive inflection in the English language is that of
+_were_ and _wert_, as opposed to the indicative forms _was_ and _wast_.
+
+ _Indicative._ | _Subjunctive._
+ _Singular._ | _Singular._ _Plural._
+ 1. I was. | If I were. If we were.
+ 2. Thou wast. | If thou wert. If ye were.
+ 3. He was. | If he were. If they were.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER XXII.
+
+ON TENSES IN GENERAL.
+
+s. 293. The nature of tenses in general is best exhibited by reference to
+the Greek; since in that language they are more numerous, and more strongly
+marked than elsewhere.
+
+_I strike_, _I struck_.--Of these words, the first implies an action taking
+place at the time of speaking, the second marks an action that has already
+taken place.
+
+These two notions of present and of past time, being expressed by a change
+of form, are true tenses. If there were no change of form, there would be
+no change of tense. They are the only true tenses in our language. In _I
+was beating_, _I have beaten_, _I had beaten_, and _I shall beat_, a
+difference of time is expressed; but as it is expressed by _a combination
+of words_, and not _by a change of form_, no true tenses are constituted.
+
+s. 294. In Greek the case is different. [Greek: Tupto] (typt[^o]) = _I
+beat_; [Greek: etupton] (etypton) = _I was beating_; [Greek: tupso]
+(typs[^o]) = _I shall beat_; [Greek: etupsa] (etypsa) = _I beat_; [Greek:
+tetupha] (tetyfa) = _I have beaten_; [Greek: etetuphein] (etetyfein) = _I
+had beaten_. In these words we have, of the same mood, the same voice, and
+the same conjugation, six different tenses; whereas, in English, there are
+but two. The forms [Greek: tetupha] and [Greek: etupsa] are so strongly
+marked, that we recognise them wheresoever they occur. The first is formed
+by a reduplication of the initial [tau], and, consequently, may be called
+the reduplicate form. As a tense it is called the perfect. In the form
+[Greek: etupsa] an [epsilon] is prefixed, and an [sigma] is added. In the
+allied language of Italy the [epsilon] disappears, whilst the [sigma] (s)
+remains. [Greek: Etupsa] is said to be an aorist tense. _Scripsi_ is to
+_scribo_ as [Greek: etupsa] is to [Greek: tupto].
+
+s. 295. Now in the Latin language a confusion takes place between these two
+tenses. Both forms exist. They are used, however, indiscriminately. The
+aorist form has, besides its own, the sense of the perfect. The perfect
+has, besides its own, the sense of the aorist. In the following pair of
+quotations, _vixi_, the aorist form, is translated _I have lived_, while
+_tetigit_, the perfect form, is translated _he touched_.
+
+ _Vixi_, et quem dederat cursum Fortuna peregi;
+ Et nunc magna mei sub terras ibis imago.--_Aen._ iv.
+
+ Ut primum alatis _tetigit_ magalia plantis.--_Aen._ iv.
+
+s. 296. 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 vers[^a]_.
+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.
+
+s. 297. In the _present_ English there is no undoubted perfect or
+reduplicate form. The form _moved_ corresponds in meaning not with [Greek:
+tetupha] and _momordi_, but with [Greek: etupsa] and _vixi_. Its sense is
+that of [Greek: etupsa], and not that of [Greek: tetupha]. The notion given
+by [Greek: tetupha] we express by the circumlocution _I have beaten_. We
+have no such form as _bebeat_ or _memove_. In the Moeso-Gothic, however,
+there was a true reduplicate form; in other words, a perfect tense as well
+as an aorist. It is by the possession of this form that the verbs of the
+first six conjugations are characterized.
+
+ _Moeso-Gothic._ _Moeso-Gothic._
+ _English._ _English._
+
+ 1st. Faltha, _I fold_ F['a]ifalth, _I have folded_,
+ or _I folded_.
+ Halda, _I feed_ H['a]ihald, _I have fed_,
+ or _I fed_.
+ Haha, _I hang_ H['a]ihah, _I have hanged_,
+ or _I hanged_.
+ 2nd. H['a]ita, _I call_ H['a]ih['a]it, _I have called_,
+ or _I called_.
+ L['a]ika, _I play_ L['a]il['a]ik, _I have played_,
+ or _I played_.
+ 3rd. Hl['a]upa, _I run_ Hl['a]il['a]up _I have run_,
+ or _I ran_.
+ 4th. Sl[^e]pa, _I sleep_ S['a]izl[^e]p, _I have slept_,
+ or _I slept_.
+ 5th. L['a]ia, _I laugh_ L['a]il[^o], _I have laughed_,
+ or _I laught_.
+ S['a]ija, _I sow_ S['a]is[^o], _I have sown_,
+ or _I sowed_.
+ 6th. Gr[^e]ta, _I weep_ G['a]igr[^o]t, _I have wept_,
+ or _I wept_.
+ T['e]ka, _I touch_ T['a]it[^o]k, _I have touched_,
+ or _I touched_.
+
+In Moeso-Gothic, as in Latin, the perfect forms have, besides their own, an
+aorist sense, and _vice vers[^a]_.
+
+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; _l['a]il[^o]_ being called the praeterite of _l['a]ia_, and
+_sv[^o]r_ the praeterite 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 said to
+be found in the Anglo-Saxon of the seventh century in the word _heht_,
+which is considered to be _h[^e]-ht_, the Moeso-Gothic _h['a]ih['a]it_,
+_vocavi_. _Did_ from _do_ is also considered to be a reduplicate form.
+
+s. 298. In the English language the tense corresponding with the Greek
+aorist and the Latin forms like _vixi_, is formed after two modes; 1, as in
+_fell_, _sang_, and _took_, from _fall_, _sing_, and _take_, by changing
+the vowel of the present: 2, as in _moved_ and _wept_, from _move_ and
+_weep_, by the addition of -d or -t; the -d or -t not being found in the
+original word, but being a fresh element added to it. In forms, on the
+contrary, like _sang_ and _fell_, no addition being made, no new element
+appears. The vowel, indeed, is changed, but nothing is added. Verbs, then,
+of the first sort, may be said to form their praeterites out of themselves;
+whilst verbs of the second sort require something from without. To speak in
+a metaphor, words like _sang_ and _fell_ are comparatively independent. Be
+this as it may, the German grammarians call the tenses formed by a change
+of vowel the _strong_ tenses, the _strong_ verbs, the _strong_ conjugation,
+or the _strong_ order; and those formed by the addition of d or t, the
+_weak_ tenses, the _weak_ verbs, the _weak_ conjugation, or the _weak_
+order. _Bound_, _spoke_, _gave_, _lay_, &c., are _strong_; _moved_,
+_favoured_, _instructed_, &c., are _weak_.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER XXIII.
+
+THE STRONG TENSES.
+
+s. 299. The strong praeterites are formed from the present by changing the
+vowel, as _sing_, _sang_; _speak_, _spoke_.
+
+In Anglo-Saxon, several praeterites change, in their plural, the vowel of
+their singular; as
+
+ Ic sang, _I sang_. | We sungon, _we sung_.
+ Thu sunge, _thou sungest_. | Ge sungon, _ye sung_.
+ He sang, _he sang_. | Hi sungon, _they sung_.
+
+The bearing of this fact upon the praeterites has already been indicated.
+In a great number of words we have a double form, as _ran_ and _run_,
+_sang_ and _sung_, _drank_ and _drunk_, &c. One of these forms is derived
+from the singular, and the other from the plural.
+
+In cases where but one form is preserved, that form is not necessarily the
+singular; indeed, it is often the plural;--e.g., Ic fand, _I found_, we
+fundon, _we found_, are the Anglo-Saxon forms. Now the present word _found_
+comes, not from the singular _fand_, but from the plural _fundon_; although
+in the Lowland Scotch dialect and in the old writers, the _singular_ form
+occurs;
+
+ Donald Caird finds orra things,
+ Where Allan Gregor _fand_ the tings.--SCOTT.
+
+s. 300. The verbs wherein the double form of the present praeterite is thus
+explained, fall into two classes.
+
+1. In the first class, the Anglo-Saxon forms were ['a] in the singular, and
+i in the plural; as--
+
+ _Sing._ | _Plur._
+ |
+ Sce['a]n | Scinon (_we shone_).
+ Ar['a]s | Arison (_we arose_).
+ Sm['a]t | Smiton (_we smote_).
+
+This accounts for--
+
+ _Present._ _Praet. from Sing. form._ _Praet. from Plur. form._
+
+ Rise Rose [54]Ris.
+ Smite Smote Smit.
+ Ride Rode [54]Rid.
+ Stride Strode Strid.
+ Slide [54]Slode Slid.
+ Chide [54]Chode Chid.
+ Drive Drove [54]Driv.
+ Thrive Throve Thriv.
+ Write Wrote Writ.
+ Slit [54]Slat Slit.
+ Bite [54]Bat Bit.
+
+2. In the second class, the Anglo-Saxon forms were a in the singular, and u
+in the plural, as--
+
+ _Sing._ | _Plural._
+ |
+ Band | Bundon (_we bound_).
+ Fand | Fundon (_we found_).
+ Grand | Grundon (_we ground_).
+ Wand | Wundon (_we wound_).
+
+This accounts for--
+
+ _Present._ _Praet from Sing. form._ _Praet. from Pl. form._
+ Swim Swam Swum.
+ Begin Began Begun.
+ Spin [55]Span Spun.
+ Win [55]Wan [56]Won.
+ Sing Sang Sung.
+ Swing [55]Swang Swung.
+ Spring Sprang Sprung.
+ Sting [55]Stang Stung.
+ Ring Rang Rung.
+ Wring [55]Wrang Wrung.
+ Fling Flang Flung.
+ [55]Hing Hang Hung.
+ String [55]Strang Strung.
+ Sink Sank Sunk.
+ Drink Drank Drunk.
+ Shrink Shrank Shrunk.
+ Stink [55]Stank Stunk.
+ Melt [55]Molt --
+ Help [55]Holp --
+ Delve [55]Dolv --
+ Stick [55]Stack Stuck.
+ Run Ran Run.
+ Burst Brast Burst.
+ Bind Band Bound.
+ Find [55]Fand Found.
+
+s. 301. The following double praeterites are differently explained. The
+primary one _often_ (but not _always_) is from the Anglo-Saxon
+_participle_, the secondary from the Anglo-Saxon _praeterite_.
+
+ _Present._ _Primary Praeterite._ _Secondary Praeterite._
+ Cleave Clove [55]Clave.
+ Steal Stole [55]Stale.
+ Speak Spoke Spake.
+ Swear Swore Sware.
+ Bear Bore Bare.
+ Tear Tore [55]Tare.
+ Wear Wore [55]Ware.
+ Break Broke Brake.
+ Get Got [55]Gat.
+ Tread Trod Trad.
+ Bid Bade Bid.
+ Eat Ate Ete.
+
+s. 302. The following verbs have only a single form for the praeterite,--
+
+ _Present._ _Praeterite._ | _Present._ _Praeterite._
+ |
+ Fall Fell. | Forsake Forsook.
+ Befall Befell. | Eat Ate.
+ Hold Held. | Give Gave.
+ Draw Drew. | Wake Woke.
+ Slay Slew. | Grave Grove.
+ Fly Flew. | Shape Shope.
+ Blow Blew. | Strike Struck.
+ Crow Crew. | Shine Shone.
+ Know Knew. | Abide Abode.
+ Grow Grew. | Strive Strove.
+ Throw Threw. | Climb Clomb.
+ Let Let. | Hide Hid.
+ Beat Beat. | Dig Dug.
+ Come Came. | Cling Clung.
+ Heave Hove. | Swell Swoll.
+ Weave Wove. | Grind Ground.
+ Freeze Froze. | Wind Wound.
+ Shear Shore. | Choose Chose.
+ ---- Quoth. | Stand Stood.
+ Seethe Sod. | Lie Lay.
+ Shake Shook. | See Saw.
+ Take Took. |
+
+s. 303. An arrangement of the preceding verbs into classes, according to
+the change of vowel, is by no means difficult, even in the present stage of
+the English language. In the Anglo-Saxon, it was easier still. It is also
+easier in the provincial dialects, than in the literary English. Thus, when
+
+ _Break_ is pronounced _Breek_,
+ _Bear_ -- _Beer_,
+ _Tear_ -- _Teer_,
+ _Swear_ -- _Sweer_,
+ _Wear_ -- _Weer_,
+
+as they actually are by many speakers, they come in the same class with,--
+
+ _Speak_ pronounced _Speek_,
+ _Cleave_ -- _Cleeve_,
+
+and form their praeterite by means of a similar change, i.e., by changing
+the sound of the ee in _feet_ (spelt ea) into that of the a in _fate_;
+viewed thus, the irregularity is less than it appears to be at first sight.
+
+Again, _tread_ is pronounced _tredd_, but many provincial speakers say
+_treed_, and so said the Anglo-Saxons, whose form was _ic trede_ = _I
+tread_. Their praeterite was _traed_. This again subtracts from the
+apparent irregularity.
+
+Instances of this kind may be multiplied; the whole question, however, of
+the conjugation of the _strong verbs_ is best considered after the perusal
+of the next chapter.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER XXIV.
+
+THE WEAK TENSES.
+
+s. 304. The praeterite tense of the weak verbs is formed by the addition of
+-d or -t.
+
+If necessary, the syllable -ed is substituted for -d.
+
+The current statement that the syllable -ed, rather than the letter -d is
+the sign of the praeterite tense, is true only in regard to the written
+language. In _stabbed_, _moved_, _bragged_, _whizzed_, _judged_, _filled_,
+_slurred_, _slammed_, _shunned_, _barred_, _strewed_, the e is a point of
+spelling only. In _language_, except in declamation, there is no second
+vowel sound. The -d comes in immediate contact with the final letter of the
+original word, and the number of syllables remains the same as it was
+before. We say _stabd_, _m[^o]ved_, _bragd_, &c.
+
+s. 305. When, however, the original word ends in -d or -t, as _slight_ or
+_brand_, then, and then only is there the real 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_, _m[^o]vd_, _cl[^o]thd_, _braggd_,
+_whizzd_, because _stabt_, _m[^o]vt_, _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 _father's_, &c., applied to another letter
+and to another part of speech.
+
+s. 306. The verbs of the weak conjugation fall into three classes.
+
+I. In the first there is the simple addition of -d, -t, or -ed.
+
+ Serve, served. | Dip, dipped (_dipt_).
+ Cry, cried. | Slip, slipped (_slipt_).
+ Betray, betrayed. | Step, stepped (_stept_).
+ Expell, expelled. | Look, looked (_lookt_).
+ Accuse, accused. | Pluck, plucked (_pluckt_).
+ Instruct, instructed. | Toss, tossed (_tost_).
+ Invite, invited. | Push, pushed (_pusht_).
+ Waste, wasted. | Confess, confessed (_confest_).
+
+To this class belong the greater part of the weak verbs and all verbs of
+foreign origin.
+
+s. 307. II. In the second class, besides the addition of -t or -d, the
+vowel is _shortened_,
+
+ _Present._ _Praeterite._
+
+ Creep Crept.
+ Keep Kept.
+ Sleep Slept.
+ Sweep Swept.
+ Weep Wept.
+ Lose Lost.
+ Mean [57]Meant.
+
+Here the final consonant is -t.
+
+ _Present_ _Praeterite_
+
+ Flee Fled.
+ Hear [58]Heard.
+ Shoe Shod.
+ Say [59]Said.
+
+Here the final consonant is -d.
+
+s. 308. III. In the second class the vowel of the present tense was
+_shortened_ in the praeterite. In the third class it is _changed_.
+
+ Tell, told.
+ Will, would.
+ Sell, sold.
+ Shall, should.
+
+To this class belong the remarkable praeterites 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 _saegde_, 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:--
+
+ Bycan, b['o]hte.
+ S[^e]can, s['o]hte.
+ Bringan, br['o]hte.
+ Thencan, th['o]hte.
+ Wyrcan, w['o]rhte.
+
+s. 309. Out of the three classes into which the weak verbs in Anglo-Saxon
+are divided, only one takes a vowel before the d or t. The other two add
+the syllables -te or -de, to the last letter of the original word. The
+vowel that, in one out of the three Anglo-Saxon classes, precedes d is o.
+Thus we have _lufian_, _lufode_; _clypian_, _clypode_. In the other two
+classes the forms are respectively _baernan_, _baernde_; and _tellan_,
+_tealde_, no vowel being found. The _participle_, however, as stated above,
+ended, not in -de or -te, but in -d or -t; and in two out of the three
+classes it was preceded by a vowel; the vowel being e,--_gelufod_,
+_baerned_, _geteald_. Now in those conjugations where no vowel preceded the
+d of the praeterite, and where the original word ended in -d or -t, a
+difficulty, which has already been indicated, arose. To add the sign of the
+praeterite to a word like _eard-ian_ (_to dwell_) was an easy matter,
+inasmuch as _eardian_ was a word belonging to the first class, and in the
+first class the praeterite was formed in -ode. Here the vowel o kept the
+two d's from coming in contact. With words, however, like _m['e]tan_ and
+_sendan_, this was not the case. Here no vowel intervened; so that the
+natural praeterite forms were _met-te_, _send-de_, combinations wherein one
+of the letters ran every chance of being dropped in the pronunciation.
+Hence, with the exception of the verbs in the first class, words ending in
+-d or -t in the root admitted no additional d or t in the praeterite. This
+difficulty, existing in the present English as it existed in the
+Anglo-Saxon, modifies the praeterites of most words ending in -t or -d.
+
+s. 310. 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.
+
+s. 311. In several words the final -d is changed into -t, as _bend_,
+_bent_; _rend_, _rent_; _send_, _sent_; _gild_, _gilt_; _build_, _built_;
+_spend_, _spent_, &c.
+
+s. 312. In several words the vowel of the root is changed; as _feed_,
+_fed_; _bleed_, _bled_; _breed_, _bred_; _meet_, _met_; _speed_, _sped_;
+_r[=e]ad_, _r[)e]ad_, &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. In this circumstance also they agree with the strong verbs.
+Hence with forms like _fed_ and _led_ we are in doubt as to the
+conjugation. This doubt we have three means of settling, as may be shown by
+the word _beat_.
+
+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 _be[)a]t_, 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
+_be['a]te_, _beot_. There is no such a weak form as _be['a]te_, _baette_.
+The praeterite of _sendan_ is _sende_ weak. There is in Anglo-Saxon no such
+form as _sand_, strong.
+
+In all this we see a series of expedients for distinguishing the praeterite
+form from the present, when the root ends with the same sound with which
+the affix begins.
+
+The change from a long vowel to a short one, as in _feed_, _fed_, &c., can
+only take place where there is a long vowel to be changed.
+
+Where the vowels are short, and, at the same time, the word ends in -d, the
+-d of the present may become -t in the praeterite. 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.
+
+s. 313. The following verbs form their praeterite in -t:--
+
+ _Present._ _Praeterite._
+
+ Leave [60]Lef_t_ not [61]Leav_ed_.
+ Cleave Clef_t_ -- Cleav_ed_.
+ Bereave Beref_t_ -- Bereav_ed_.
+ Deal [62]Deal_t_ -- Deal_ed_.
+ Feel Fel_t_ -- Feel_ed_.
+ Dream [60]Drem_t_ -- Dream_ed_.
+ Learn [60]Lern_t_ -- Learn_ed_.
+
+s. 314. Certain _so-called_ irregularities may now be noticed.--_Made_,
+_had_.--In these words there is nothing remarkable but the ejection of a
+consonant. The Anglo-Saxon forms are _macode_ and _haefde_, respectively.
+The words, however, in regard to the amount of change, are not upon a
+_par_. The f in _haefde_ was probably sounded as v. Now v is a letter
+excessively liable to be ejected, which k is not. K, before it is ejected,
+is generally changed into either g or y.
+
+_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 s. 331.
+
+s. 315. _Aught_.--In Anglo-Saxon _['a]hte_, the praeterite of the present
+form _['a]h_, plural _['a]gon_.--As late as the time of Elizabeth we find
+_owe_ used for _own_. The present form _own_ seems to have arisen from the
+plural _['a]gon_. _Aught_ is the praeterite of the Anglo-Saxon _['a]h_;
+_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_.
+
+s. 316. _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.
+
+This has still to be satisfactorily accounted for.
+
+_Must_.--A form common to all persons, numbers, and tenses. That neither
+the -s nor the -t are part of the original root, is indicated by the
+Scandinavian form _maae_ (Danish), pronounced _moh_; praeterite _maatt_.
+
+This form has still to be satisfactorily accounted for.
+
+_Wist_.--In its present form a regular praeterite 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. _v['a]it_; 2. do., _v['a]ist_; 1 pl.
+_vitum_; praeterite 1 s. _vissa_; 2 _viss[^e]ss_; 1 pl. _viss[^e]dum_. From
+the form _v['a]ist_ we see that the second singular is formed after the
+manner of _must_; that is, _v['a]ist_ stands instead of _v['a]it-t_. From
+the form _viss[^e]dum_ we see that the praeterite is not strong, but weak;
+therefore that _vissa_ is euphonic for _vista_.
+
+In Anglo-Saxon.--_W[^a]t_, _w['a]st_, _witon_, _wiste_, and _wisse_,
+_wiston_.--Hence the double forms, _wiste_, and _wisse_, verify the
+statement concerning the Moeso-Gothic _vissa_.
+
+In Icelandic.--_Veit_, _veizt_, _vitum_, _vissi_. Danish _ved_, _vide_,
+_vidste_. Observe the form _vidste_; since, in it, the d of the root (in
+spelling, at least) is preserved. The t of the Anglo-Saxon _wiste_ is the
+t, not of the root, but of the inflection.
+
+In respect to the four forms in question, viz., _wit_, _wot_, _wiss_,
+_wisst_, the first seems to be the root; the second a strong praeterite
+regularly formed, but used (like [Greek: oida] in Greek) with a present
+sense; the third a weak praeterite, of which the -t has been ejected by a
+euphonic process, used also with a present sense; the fourth is a second
+singular from _wiss_ after the manner of _wert_ from _were_, a second
+singular from _wit_ after the manner of _must_, a secondary praeterite from
+_wiss_, or finally, the form _wisse_, anterior to the operation of the
+euphonic process that ejected the -t.
+
+s. 317. 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 _de['a]h_,
+_dugon_, _dohte_, _dohtest_, &c. Of the second it is _d['o]_, _dodh_,
+_dyde_, &c. I doubt whether the praeterite _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 _de['a]h_ does the
+same.
+
+s. 318. _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
+praeterite tense (_gemunde_, _gemundon_), of which it is the sign. _Mind_
+is, then, a praeterite form with a present sense; whilst _minded_ (as in
+_he minded his business_) is an instance of excess of inflection; in other
+words, it is a praeterite formed from a praeterite.
+
+s. 319. _Yode_.--The obsolete praeterite of _go_, now replaced by _went_,
+the praeterite of _wend_. Regular, except that the initial g has become y.
+
+s. 320. _Did_.--See s. 317.
+
+_Did_, from _do_ = _facio_, is a _strong_ verb. This we infer from the form
+of its participle _done_.
+
+If so the final -d is not the same as the -d in _moved_. What is it? There
+are good grounds for believing that in the word _did_ we have a single
+instance of the old _reduplicate praeterite_. If so, it is the latter d
+which is radical, and the former which is inflectional.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER XXV.
+
+ON CONJUGATION.
+
+s. 321. Attention is directed to the following list of verbs. In the
+present English they all form the praeterite in -d or -t; in Anglo-Saxon,
+they all formed it by a change of the vowel. In other words they are _weak
+verbs that were once strong_.
+
+ _Praeterites._
+
+ _English._ _Anglo-Saxon._
+
+ _Present._ _Praeterite._ | _Present._ _Praeterite._
+ |
+ Wreak Wreaked. | Wrece Wraec.
+ Fret Fretted. | Frete Fraet.
+ Mete Meted. | Mete Maet.
+ Shear Sheared. | Scere Scear.
+ Braid Braided. | Brede Braed.
+ Knead Kneaded. | Cnede Cnaed.
+ Dread Dreaded. | Draede Dred.
+ Sleep Slept. | Sl['a]pe Slep.
+ Fold Folded. | Fealde Feold.
+ Wield Wielded. | Wealde Weold.
+ Wax Waxed. | Weaxe Weox.
+ Leap Leapt. | Hle['a]pe Hleop.
+ Sweep Swept. | Sw['a]pe Sweop.
+ Weep Wept. | Wepe Weop.
+ Sow Sowed. | S['a]we Seow.
+ Bake Baked. | Bace B['o]k.
+ Gnaw Gnawed. | Gnage Gn['o]h.
+ Laugh Laughed. | Hlihhe Hl['o]h.
+ Wade Waded. | Wade W['o]d.
+ Lade Laded. | Hlade Hl['o]d.
+ Grave Graved. | Grafe Gr['o]f.
+ Shave Shaved. | Scafe Sc['o]f.
+ Step Stepped. | Steppe St['o]p.
+ Wash Washed. | Wacse W['o]cs.
+ Bellow Bellowed. | Belge Bealh.
+ Swallow Swallowed. | Swelge Swealh.
+ Mourn Mourned. | Murne Mearn.
+ Spurn Spurned. | Spurne Spearn.
+ Carve Carved. | Ceorfe Cearf.
+ Starve Starved. | Steorfe Staerf.
+ Thresh Threshed. | Thersce Thaersc.
+ Hew Hewed. | Heawe Heow.
+ Flow Flowed. | Fl['o]we Fleow.
+ Row Rowed. | R['o]we Reow.
+ Creep Crept. | Cre['o]pe Cre['a]p.
+ Dive Dived. | De['o]fe De['a]f.
+ Shove Shoved. | Sc['e]ofe Sce['a]f.
+ Chew Chewed. | Ce['o]we Ce['a]w.
+ Brew Brewed. | Bre['o]we Bre['a]w.
+ Lock Locked. | L[^u]ce Le['a]c.
+ Suck Sucked. | S[^u]ce Se['a]c.
+ Reek Reeked. | Re['o]ce Re['a]c.
+ Smoke Smoked. | Sme['o]ce Sme['a]c.
+ Bow Bowed. | Be['o]ge Be['a]h.
+ Lie Lied. | Le['o]ge Le['a]h.
+ Gripe Griped. | Gr['i]pe Gr['a]p.
+ Span Spanned. | Spanne Sp['e]n.
+ Eke Eked. | E['a]ce E['o]c.
+ Fare Fared. | Fare F[^o]r.
+
+s. 322. Respecting the _strong_ verb, the following general statements may
+be made:
+
+1. Many strong verbs become weak; whilst no weak verb ever becomes strong.
+
+2. All the strong verbs are of Saxon origin. None are classical.
+
+3. The greater number of them are strong throughout the Gothic tongues.
+
+4. No new word is ever, upon its importation, inflected according to the
+strong conjugation. It is always weak. As early as A.D. 1085, the French
+word _adouber_ = _to dub_, was introduced into English. Its praeterite was
+_dubbade_.
+
+5. All derived words are inflected weak. The intransitive forms _drink_ and
+_lie_, are strong; the transitive forms _drench_ and _lay_, are weak.
+
+This shows that the division of verbs into _weak_ and _strong_ is a truly
+natural one.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER XXVI.
+
+DEFECTIVENESS AND IRREGULARITY.
+
+s. 323. The distinction between irregularity and defectiveness has been
+foreshadowed. It is now more urgently insisted on.
+
+The words that have hitherto served as illustrations are the personal
+pronouns _I_ or _me_, the adjectives _good_, _better_, and _best_.
+
+The view of these words was as follows; viz., that none of them were
+_irregular_, but that they were all _defective_. _Me_ wanted the
+nominative, _I_ the oblique cases. _Good_ was without a comparative,
+_better_ and _best_ had no positive degree.
+
+Now _me_ and _better_ may be said to make good the defectiveness of _I_ and
+_good_; and _I_ and _good_ may be said to replace the forms wanting in _me_
+and _better_. This gives us the principle of _compensation_. To introduce a
+new term, _I_ and _me_, _good_ and _better_, may be said to be
+_complementary_ to each other.
+
+What applies to nouns applies to verbs also. _Go_ and _went_ are not
+irregularities. _Go_ is defective in the past tense. _Went_ is without a
+present. The two words, however, compensate their mutual deficiencies, and
+are complementary to each other.
+
+The distinction between defectiveness and irregularity, is the first
+instrument of criticism for coming to true views concerning the proportion
+of the regular and irregular verbs.
+
+s. 324. The second instrument of criticism in determining the irregular
+verbs, is the meaning that we attach to the term.
+
+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 praeterite is
+formed _by the addition of_ -t, or -d, or -ed; a position sufficiently
+exclusive; since it proscribes not only the whole class of strong verbs,
+but also words like _bent_ and _sent_, where -t exists, but where it does
+not exist as _an addition_. The regular forms, it may be said, should be
+_bended_ and _sended_.
+
+Exclusive, however, as the rule in question is, it is plain that it might
+be made more so. The regular forms might, by the _fiat_ of a rule, be
+restricted to those in -d. In this case words like _wept_ and _burnt_ would
+be added to the already numerous list of irregulars.
+
+Finally, a further limitation might be made, by laying down as a rule that
+no word was regular, unless it ended in -ed.
+
+s. 325. 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; and that 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.
+
+s. 326. The explanation of some fresh terms will lead us towards the
+definition of the word _irregular_.
+
+_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 praeterite. The word _fell_ is formed from _fall_, by
+changing a into e. The change of vowel is the process by which the present
+form is rendered praeterite. Of the two processes the result is the same.
+In what respect do they differ?
+
+For the sake of illustration, let a new word be introduced into the
+language. Let a praeterite tense of it be formed. This praeterite would be
+formed, not by changing the vowel, but by adding -d. No _new_ verb ever
+takes a strong praeterite. The like takes place with nouns. No _new_
+substantive would form its plural, like _oxen_ or _geese_, by adding -en,
+or by changing the vowel. It would rather, like _fathers_ and _horses_, add
+the lene sibilant.
+
+Now, the processes that change _fall_, _ox_ and _goose_ into _fell_,
+_oxen_, and _geese_, inasmuch as they cease to operate on the language in
+its present stage, are _obsolete_ processes; whilst those that change
+_move_ into _moved_, and _horse_ into _horses_, operating on the language
+in its present stage, are _vital_ processes.
+
+A definition of the word _irregular_ might be so framed as to include all
+words whose forms could not be accounted for by the vital processes. Such a
+definition would make all the strong verbs irregular.
+
+The very fact of so natural a class as that of the strong verbs being
+reduced to the condition of irregulars, invalidates such a definition as
+this.
+
+s. 327. _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., being their praeterites, instead of
+_stepd_, _quaffd_. Here the change from -d to -t is a matter 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 process of necessity), and _wept_
+(modified by a process of habit), would be equally irregular.
+
+A less limited definition might account words regular as long as the
+process by which they are deflected from their natural form was a process
+of necessity. Those, however, which were modified by a process of habit it
+would class with the irregulars.
+
+Definitions thus limited arise from ignorance of euphonic processes, or
+rather from an ignorance of the generality of their operation.
+
+s. 328. _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 vers[^a]_. Changing our expression, a common influence affects both
+words. The alteration itself is the leading 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.
+
+s. 329. _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 the process which affects the one is
+the process that affects the other also. Here there is a positive process.
+
+Reference is now made to words of a different sort. The nature of the word
+_worse_ has been explained in the Chapter on the Comparative Degree. There
+the form is accounted for in two ways, of which only one can be the true
+one. Of the two processes, each might equally have brought about the
+present form. Which of the two it was, we are unable to say. Here the
+process is _ambiguous_.
+
+A definition of the word _irregular_ might be so framed as to include all
+words affected by ambiguous processes.
+
+s. 330. _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, only _appear_
+to do so. Let it be dealt with accordingly. The analogy then is a false
+one. The principle of imitation is a wrong one. The process affecting is a
+process of confusion.
+
+Examples of this (a few amongst many) are words like _songstress_,
+_theirs_, _minded_, where the words _songstr-_, _their-_, _mind-_, are
+dealt with as roots, which they are not.
+
+Ambiguous processes, extraordinary processes, processes of confusion--each,
+or all of these, are legitimate reasons for calling words irregular. The
+practice of etymologists will determine what definition is most convenient.
+
+With extraordinary processes we know nothing about the word. With ambiguous
+processes we are unable to make a choice. With processes of confusion we
+see the analogy, but, at the same time, see that it is a false one.
+
+s. 331. _Could_.--With all persons who pronounce the l this word is truly
+irregular. The Anglo-Saxon form is _cudhe_. The l is inserted by a process
+of confusion.
+
+_Can_, _cunne_, _canst_, _cunnon_, _cunnan_, _cudhe_, _cudhon_,
+_cudh_--such are the remaining forms in Anglo-Saxon. None of them account
+for the l. The presence of the l makes the word _could_ irregular. No
+reference to the allied languages accounts for it.
+
+Notwithstanding this, the presence of the l is accounted for. In _would_
+and _should_ the l has a proper 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 with the
+spelling. This reduces the word _could_ to an irregularity, not of
+language, but only of orthography.
+
+That the mere ejection of the -n in _can_, and that the mere lengthening of
+the vowel, are not irregularities, we learn from a knowledge of the
+processes that convert the Greek [Greek: odontos] (_odontos_) into [Greek:
+odous] (_odows_).
+
+s. 332. The verb _quoth_ is truly defective. It is found in only one tense,
+one number, and one person. It is the third person singular of the
+praeterite tense. It has the further peculiarity of preceding its pronoun.
+Instead of saying _he quoth_, we say _quoth he_. In Anglo-Saxon, however,
+it was not defective. It was found in the other tenses, in the other
+number, and in other moods. _Ic cwedhe_, _th['u] cwyst_, _he cwydh_; _ic
+cwaedh_, _th['u] cwaedhe_, _he cwaedh_, _we cwaedon_, _ge cwaedon_, _hi
+cwaedon_; imperative, _cwedh_; participle, _gecweden_. In the Scandinavian
+it is current in all its forms. There, however, it means, not _to speak_
+but to _sing_. As far as its conjugation goes, it is strong. As far as its
+class goes, it follows the form of _speak_, _spoke_. Like _speak_, its
+Anglo-Saxon form is in ae, as _cwaedh_. Like one of the forms of _speak_,
+its English form is in o, as _quoth_, _spoke_.
+
+s. 333. The principle that gives us the truest views of the structure of
+language is that which considers no word irregular unless it be affected by
+either an _ambiguous_ process, or by a _process of confusion_. The words
+affected by _extraordinary processes_ form a provisional class, which a
+future increase of our etymological knowledge may show to be regular.
+_Worse_ and _could_ are the fairest specimens of our irregulars. Yet even
+_could_ is only an irregularity in the written language. The printer makes
+it, and the printer can take it away. Hence the class, instead of filling
+pages, is exceedingly limited.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER XXVII.
+
+THE IMPERSONAL VERBS.
+
+s. 334. In _me-seems_, and _me-thinks_, the _me_ is dative rather than
+accusative, and = _mihi_ and [Greek: moi] rather than _me_ and [Greek: me].
+
+s. 335. In _me-listeth_, the _me_ is accusative rather than dative, and =
+_me_ and [Greek: me] rather than _mihi_ and [Greek: moi].
+
+For the explanation of this difference see _Syntax_, Chapter XXI.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER XXVIII.
+
+THE VERB SUBSTANTIVE.
+
+s. 336. The verb substantive is generally dealt with as an _irregular_
+verb. This is inaccurate. The true notion is that the idea of _being_ or
+_existing_ is expressed by four different verbs, each of which is defective
+in some of its parts. The parts, however, that are wanting in one verb, are
+made up by the inflections of one of the others. There is, for example, no
+praeterite of the verb _am_, and no present of the verb _was_. The absence,
+however, of the present form of _was_ is made up by the word _am_, and the
+absence of the praeterite form of _am_ is made up by the word _was_.
+
+s. 337. _Was_ is defective, except in the praeterite tense, where it is
+found both in the indicative and conjunctive.
+
+ _Indicative._ | _Conjunctive._
+ _Sing._ _Plur._ | _Sing._ _Plur._
+ 1. Was Were. | 1. Were Were.
+ 2. Wast Were. | 2. Wert Were.
+ 3. Was Were. | 3. Were Were.
+
+In the older stages of the Gothic languages the word had both a full
+conjugation and a regular one. In Anglo-Saxon it had an infinitive, a
+participle present, and a participle past. In Moeso-Gothic it was inflected
+throughout with -s; as _visa_, _vas_, _v[^e]sum_, _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_, _w[^a]rum['e]s_, _wesaner_.
+In Norse the s _entirely_ disappears, and the word is inflected with r
+throughout; _vera_, _var_, _vorum_, &c.
+
+s. 338. _Be_ is inflected in Anglo-Saxon throughout the present tense, both
+indicative and subjunctive. It is found also as an infinitive, _be['o]n_;
+as a gerund, _to beonne_; and as a participle, _beonde_; in the present
+English its inflection is as follows:
+
+ _Present._
+ _Conjunctive._ | _Imperative._
+ _Sing._ _Plur._ | _Sing._ _Plur._
+ Be Be. | -- --
+ -- -- | Be Be
+ Be Be | -- --
+ _Infin._ To be. _Pres. P._ Being. _Past. Part._ Been.
+
+s. 339. 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: _byst_ in Anglo-Saxon is
+indicative, the conjunctive form being _be['o]_. _And every thing that
+pretty bin_ (Cymbeline).--Here the word _bin_ is the conjunctive plural, in
+Anglo-Saxon _be['o]n_; 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 pulchra sint_; in Greek, thus, [Greek: ha an kala ei]. The
+_indicative_ plural is, in Anglo-Saxon, not _be['o]n_, but _be['o]dh_ and
+_be['o]_.
+
+s. 340. In the "Deutsche Grammatik" it is stated that the Anglo-Saxon forms
+_be[^o]_, _bist_, _bidh_, _beodh_, or _be['o]_, have not a present but a
+_future_ sense; that whilst _am_ means _I am_, _be['o]_ means _I shall be_;
+and that in the older languages it is only where the form _am_ is not found
+that _be_ has the power of a present form. The same root occurs in the
+Slavonic and Lithuanic tongues with the same power; as, _esmi_ = _I am_;
+_b['u]su_ = _I shall be_, Lithuanic. _Esmu_ = _I am_; _buhshu_ = _I shall
+be_, Livonic.--_Jesm_ = _I am_; _budu_ = _I shall be_, Slavonic.--_Gsem_ =
+_I am_; _budu_ = _I shall be_, Bohemian. This, however, proves, not that
+there is in Anglo-Saxon a future tense, but that the word _be['o]_ has a
+future sense. There is no fresh tense where there is no fresh form.
+
+The following is a specimen of the future power of _be['o]n_ in
+Anglo-Saxon:--_"Hi ne _be['o]dh_ na c['i]lde, sodhlice, on domesdaege, ac
+_be['o]dh_ swa micele menn swa swa hi migton be['o]n gif hi full weoxon on
+gewunlicre ylde."_--Aelfric's Homilies. "They _will not be_ children,
+forsooth, on Domesday, but _will be_ as much (so muckle) men as they might
+be if they were full grown (waxen) in customary age."
+
+s. 341. Now, if we consider the word _be['o]n_ like the word _weordhan_
+(see s. 343) to mean not so much _to be_ as to _become_, we get an element
+of the idea of futurity. Things which are _becoming anything_ have yet
+something further to either do or suffer. Again, from the idea of futurity
+we get the idea of contingency, and this explains the subjunctive power of
+_be_. In English we often say _may_ for _shall_, and the same was done in
+Anglo-Saxon.
+
+s. 342. _Am_.--Of this form it should be stated that the letter -m is no
+part of the original word. It is the sign of the first person, just as it
+is in _Greek_, and several other languages.
+
+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.
+
+ 1. 2. 3.
+ Sanskrit _Asmi_ _Asi_ _Asti_.
+ Zend _Ahmi_ _Asi_ _Ashti_.
+ Greek [Greek: Eimi] [Greek: Eis] [Greek: Esti].
+ Latin _Sum_ _Es_ _Est_.
+ Lithuanic _Esmi_ _Essi_ _Esti_.
+ Old Slavonic _Yesmy_ _Yesi_ _Yesty_.
+ Moeso-Gothic _Im_ _Is_ _Ist_.
+ Old Saxon -- [63]_Is_ _Ist_.
+ Anglo-Saxon _Eom_ _Eart_ _Is_.
+ Icelandic _Em_ _Ert_ _Er_.
+ English _Am_ _Art_ _Is_.
+
+s. 343. _Worth_.--In the following lines of Scott, the word _worth_ = _is_,
+and is a fragment of the regular Anglo-Saxon verb _weordhan_ = _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.
+
+s. 344. The present participle, called also the active participle and the
+participle in -ing, is formed from the original word by adding -ing; as,
+_move_, _moving_. In the older languages the termination was more marked,
+being -nd. Like the Latin participle in -ns, it was originally declined.
+The Moeso-Gothic and Old High German forms are _habands_ and
+_hap[^e]nt['e]r_ = _having_, respectively. The -s in the one language, and
+the -[^e]r in the other, are the signs of the case and gender. In the Old
+Saxon and Anglo-Saxon the forms are -and and -ande; as _bindand_,
+_bindande_ = _binding_. In all the Norse languages, ancient and modern, the
+-d is preserved. So it is in the Old Lowland Scotch, and in many of the
+modern provincial dialects of England, where _strikand_, _goand_, is said
+for _striking_, _going_. In Staffordshire, where the -ing is pronounced
+-ingg, there is a fuller sound than that of the current English. In Old
+English the form in -nd is predominant, in Middle English the use
+fluctuates, and in New English the termination -ing is universal. In the
+Scotch of the modern writers we find the form -in.
+
+ 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_.
+
+s. 345. It has often been remarked that the participle is used in many
+languages as a substantive. This is true in Greek,
+
+ [Greek: Ho prasson] = _the actor_, when a male.
+ [Greek: He prassousa] = _the actor_, when a female.
+ [Greek: To prattou] = _the active principle of a thing_.
+
+But it is also stated, that, in the English language, the participle is
+used as a substantive in a greater degree than elsewhere, and that it is
+used in several cases and in both numbers, e.g.,
+
+ _Rising_ early is healthy,
+ There is health _in rising_ early.
+ This is the advantage _of rising_ early.
+ The _risings_ in the North, &c.
+
+Some acute remarks of Mr. R. Taylor, in the Introduction to his edition of
+Tooke's "Diversions of Purley," modify this view. According to these, the
+-ing in words like _rising_ is not the -ing of the present participle;
+neither has it originated in the Anglo-Saxon -end. It is rather the -ing in
+words like _morning_; which is anything but a participle of the
+non-existent verb _morn_, and which has originated in the Anglo-Saxon
+substantival termination -ung. Upon this Rask writes as
+follows:--"_Gitsung_, _gewilnung_ = _desire_; _swutelung_ =
+_manifestation_; _claensung_ = _a cleansing_; _sceawung_ = _view_,
+_contemplation_; _eordh-beofung_ = _an earthquake_; _gesomnung_ = _an
+assembly_. This termination is chiefly used in forming substantives from
+verbs of the first class in -ian; as _h['a]lgung_ = _consecration_, from
+_h['a]lgian_ = _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 _irregularly_ participial, and have been formed
+on a false analogy.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER XXX.
+
+THE PAST PARTICIPLE.
+
+s. 346. A. _The participle in_ -EN.--In the Anglo-Saxon this participle was
+declined like the adjectives. Like the adjectives, it is, in the present
+English, undeclined.
+
+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 praeterites with a participial sense.
+
+s. 347. _Drank_, _drunk_, _drunken_.--With all words wherein the vowel of
+the plural differs from that of the singular, the participle takes the
+plural form. To say _I have drunk_, is to use an ambiguous expression;
+since _drunk_ may be either a participle _minus_ its termination, or a
+praeterite with a participial sense. To say _I have drank_, is to use a
+praeterite for a participle. To say _I have drunken_, is to use an
+unexceptional form.
+
+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_.
+
+s. 348. As a general rule, we find the participle in -en wherever the
+praeterite is strong; indeed, the participle in -en may be called the
+strong participle, or the participle of the strong conjugation. Still the
+two forms do not always coincide. In _mow_, _mowed_, _mown_, _sow_,
+_sowed_, _sown_; and several other words, we find the participle strong,
+and the praeterite weak. I remember no instances of the converse. This is
+only another way of saying that the praeterite has a greater tendency to
+pass from strong to weak than the participle.
+
+s. 349. In the Latin language the change from s to r, and _vice vers[^a]_,
+is very common. We have the double forms _arbor_ and _arbos_, _honor_ and
+_honos_, &c. Of this change we have a few specimens in English. The words
+_rear_ and _raise_, as compared with each other, are examples. In
+Anglo-Saxon a few words undergo a similar change in the plural number of
+the strong praeterites.
+
+ Ce['o]se, _I choose_; ce[^a]s, _I chose_; curon, _we chose_; gecoren,
+ _chosen_.
+ Forle['o]se, _I lose_; forle['a]s, _I lost_; forluron, _we lost_;
+ forloren, _lost_.
+ Hreose, _I rush_; hre['a]s, _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_.
+
+s. 350. B. The _participle_ in -D, -T, or -ED.--In the Anglo-Saxon this
+participle was declined like the adjective. Like the adjective, it is, in
+the present English, undeclined.
+
+In Anglo-Saxon it differed in form from the praeterite, inasmuch as it
+ended in -ed, or -t, whereas the praeterite ended in -ode, -de, or -te: as,
+_lufode_, _baernde_, _dypte_, praeterites; _gelufod_, _baerned_, _dypt_,
+participles.
+
+As the ejection of the e (in one case final in the other not) reduces words
+like _baerned_ and _baernde_ to the same form, it is easy to account for
+the present identity of form between the weak praeterites and the
+participles in -d: e.g., _I moved_, _I have moved_, &c.
+
+s. 351. _The prefix_ Y.--In the older writers, and in works written, like
+Thomson's "Castle of Indolence," in imitation of them, we find prefixed to
+the praeterite participle the letter y-, as, _yclept_ = _called_: _yclad_ =
+_clothed_: _ydrad_ = _dreaded_.
+
+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,
+_h[^a]ten_ = _called_, _ge-h[^a]ten_ = _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, _sinths_ = _a journey_,
+_ga-sintha_ = _a companion_; Old High German, _perc_ = _hill_; _ki-perki_
+(_gebirge_) = _a range of hills_.
+
+7. But it has also a _frequentative_ power; a frequentative power, which
+is, in all probability, secondary to its collective power; since things
+which recur frequently recur 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.
+
+ _Anglo-Saxon._ _English._ _Anglo-Saxon._ _Latin._
+
+ Feax _Hair_ _Ge-feax_ _Comatus._
+ Heorte _Heart_ _Ge-heort_ _Cordatus._
+ Stence _Odour_ _Ge-stence_ _Odorus._
+
+This power is also a collective, since every quality is associated with the
+object that possesses it; _a sea with waves_ = _a wavy sea_.
+
+9. Hence it is probable that the ga-, ki-, or gi-, Gothic, is the _cum_ of
+Latin languages. Such, at least, is Grimm's view, as given in the "Deutsche
+Grammatik," i. 1016.
+
+Concerning this, it may be said that it is deficient in an essential point.
+It does not show how the participle past is collective. Undoubtedly it may
+be said that every such participle is in the condition of words like
+_ge-feax_ and _ge-heort_; i.e., that they imply an association between the
+object and the action or state. But this does not seem to be Grimm's view;
+he rather suggests that the ge- may have been a prefix to verbs in general,
+originally attached to all their forms, but finally abandoned everywhere
+except in the case of the participle.
+
+The theory of this prefix has yet to assume a satisfactory form.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER XXXI.
+
+COMPOSITION.
+
+s. 352. In the following words, amongst many others, we have palpable and
+indubitable specimens of composition--_day-star_, _vine-yard_, _sun-beam_,
+_apple-tree_, _ship-load_, _silver-smith_, &c. The words _palpable_ and
+_indubitable_ have been used, because in many cases, as will be seen
+hereafter, it is difficult to determine whether a word be a true compound
+or not.
+
+s. 353. 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_.
+
+s. 354. That the idea given by the word _apple-tree_ is not referable to
+the words _apple_ and _tree_, irrespective of the order in which they
+occur, may be seen by reversing the position of them. The word
+_tree-apple_, although not existing in the language, is as correct a word
+as _thorn-apple_. In _tree-apple_, the particular sort of _apple_ meant is
+denoted by the word _tree_, and if there were in our gardens various sorts
+of plants called _apples_, of which some grew along the ground and others
+upon trees, such a word as _tree-apple_ would be required in order to be
+opposed to _earth-apple_, or _ground-apple_, or some word of the kind.
+
+In the compound words _tree-apple_ and _apple-tree_, we have the same
+elements differently arranged. However, as the word _tree-apple_ is not
+current in the language, the class of compounds indicated by it may seem to
+be merely imaginary. Nothing is farther from being the case. A _tree-rose_
+is a _rose_ of a particular sort. The generality of _roses_ being on
+_shrubs_, this grows on a _tree_. Its peculiarity consists in this fact,
+and this particular character is expressed by the word _tree_ prefixed. A
+_rose-tree_ is a _tree_ of a particular sort, distinguished from
+_apple-trees_, and _trees_ in general (in other words, particularised or
+defined), by the word _rose_ prefixed.
+
+A _ground-nut_ is a _nut_ particularised by growing in the ground. A
+_nut-ground_ is a _ground_ particularised by producing nuts.
+
+A _finger-ring_, as distinguished from an _ear-ring_, and from _rings_ in
+general (and so particularised), is a _ring_ for the _finger_. A
+_ring-finger_, as distinguished from _fore-fingers_, and from _fingers_ in
+general (and so particularised), is a _finger_ whereon _rings_ are worn.
+
+s. 355. At times this rule seems to be violated. The words _spit-fire_ and
+_dare-devil_ seem exceptions to it. At the first glance it seems, in the
+case of a _spit-fire_, that what he (or she) _spits_ is _fire_; and that,
+in the case of a _dare-devil_, what he (or she) _dares_ is the _devil_. In
+this case the initial words _spit_ and _dare_ are particularised by the
+final ones _fire_ and _devil_. The true idea, however, confirms the
+original rule. A _spit-fire_ voids his fire by spitting. A _dare-devil_, in
+meeting the fiend, would not shrink from him, but would defy him. A
+_spit-fire_ is not one who spits fire, but one whose fire is _spit_. A
+_dare-devil_ is not one who dares even the devil, but one by whom the devil
+is even dared.
+
+s. 356. Of the two elements of a compound word, which is the most
+important? In one sense the latter, in another sense the former. The latter
+word is the most _essential_; since the general idea of _trees_ must exist
+before it can be defined or particularised; so becoming the idea which we
+have in _apple-tree_, _rose-tree_, &c. The former word, however, is the
+most _influential_. It is by this that the original idea is qualified. The
+latter word is the staple original element: the former is the superadded
+influencing element. Compared with each other, the former element is
+active, the latter passive. Etymologically speaking, the former element, in
+English compounds, is the most important.
+
+s. 357. Most numerous are the observations that bear upon the detail of the
+composition of words; e.g., how nouns combine with nouns, as in _sun-beam_;
+nouns with verbs, as in _dare-devil_, &c. It is thought however, sufficient
+in the present work to be content with, 1. defining the meaning of the term
+composition; 2. explaining the nature of some obscure compounds.
+
+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.
+
+_Two._--For this, see s. 369.
+
+_Different._--In Old High German we find the form _selp-selpo_. Here there
+is the junction of two words, but not the junction of two _different_ ones.
+This distinguishes composition from gemination.
+
+_Words._--In _father-s_, _clear-er_, _four-th_, &c., there is the addition
+of a letter or a syllable, and it may be even of the part of a word. There
+is no addition, however, of a whole word. This distinguishes composition
+from derivation.
+
+_Treating the combination as a single term._--In determining between
+derived words and compound words, there is an occasional perplexity; the
+perplexity, however, is far greater in determining between a _compound
+word_ and _two words_. In the eyes of one grammarian the term _mountain
+height_ may be as truly a compound word as _sun-beam_. In the eyes of
+another grammarian it may be no compound word, but two words, just as
+_Alpine height_ is two words; _mountain_ being dealt with as an adjective.
+It is in the determination of this that the accent plays an important part.
+
+s. 358. As a preliminary to a somewhat subtle distinction, the attention of
+the reader is drawn to the following line, slightly altered, from
+Churchill:--
+
+ "Then r['e]st, my fri['e]nd, _and sp['a]re_ thy pr['e]cious br['e]ath."
+
+On each of the syllables _r['e]st_, _fri['e]nd_, _sp['a]re_, _pr['e]c-_,
+_br['e]ath_, 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_, so much on _spare_, that the disparity of accent is
+very manifest.
+
+Now, if in the place of _and_, there were some other word, a word not so
+much accented as _spare_, but still more accented than _and_, this
+disparity would be diminished, and the accents of the two words might be
+said to be at _par_, or nearly so. As said before, the line was slightly
+altered from Churchill, the real reading being
+
+ "Then r['e]st, my fri['e]nd, _spare, spare_ thy pr['e]cious br['e]ath."
+
+In the true reading we actually find what had previously only been
+supposed. In the words _spare, spare_, the accents are nearly at _par_.
+Such the difference between accent at par and disparity of accent.
+
+Good illustrations of the parity and disparity of accent may be drawn from
+certain names of places. Let there be such a sentence as the following:
+_the lime house near the bridge north of the new port_. Compare the parity
+of accent on the pairs of words _lime_ and _house_, _bridge_ and _north_,
+_new_ and _port_, with the disparity of accent in the compound words
+_L['i]mehouse_, _Br['i]dgenorth_, and _N['e]wport_. The separate words
+_beef steak_, where the accent is nearly at _par_, compared with the
+compound word _swe['e]pstakes_, where there is a great disparity of accent,
+are further illustrations of the same difference.
+
+The difference between a compound word and a pair of words is further
+illustrated by comparing such terms as the following:--_bl['a]ck b['i]rd_,
+meaning a _bird that is black_, with _bl['a]ckbird_ = the Latin _merula_;
+_bl['u]e b['e]ll_, meaning a _bell that is blue_, with _bl['u]ebell_, the
+flower. Expressions like a _sh['a]rp edg['e]d instrument_, meaning _an
+instrument that is sharp and has edges_, as opposed to _a sh['a]rp-edged
+instrument_, meaning _an instrument with sharp edges_, further exemplify
+this difference.
+
+Subject to a few exceptions, it may be laid down, that, in the English
+language, _there is no composition unless there is either a change of form
+or a change of accent_.
+
+s. 359. The reader is now informed, that unless 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 suggested by the term is _that a house is red_.
+By a parity of reasoning _a mad house_ should mean a _house that is mad_;
+and provided that each word retain its _natural meaning_ and its _natural
+accent_, such is the fact. Let a _house_ mean, as it often does, a
+_family_. Then the phrase, _a mad house_, means that the _house_, _or
+family_, _is mad_, just as a _red house_ means that the _house is red_.
+Such, however, is not the current meaning of the word. Every one knows that
+_a mad house_ means _a house for mad men_; in which case it is treated as a
+compound word, and has a marked accent on the first syllable, just as
+_L['i]mehouse_ 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 _m['a]dhouse_, in its common sense, expressed 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. Now etymology, taking cognisance of forms only, has
+nothing to do with ideas, except so far as they influence forms.
+
+Such is the commentary upon the words, _treating the combination as a
+single term_; in other words, such the difference between a compound word
+and two words. The rule, being repeated, stands (subject to exceptions
+indicated above) thus:--_there is no true composition without either a
+change of form or a change of accent_.
+
+s. 360. As I wish to be clear upon this point, I shall illustrate the
+statement by its application.
+
+The term _tr['e]e-rose_ is often pronounced _tr['e]e r['o]se_; that is,
+with the accent at _par_. It is compound in the one case; it is a pair of
+words in the other.
+
+The terms _mountain ash_ and _mountain height_ are generally (perhaps
+always) pronounced with an equal accent on the syllables _mount-_ and
+_ash_, _mount-_ and _height_, respectively. In this case the word
+_mountain_ must be dealt with as an adjective, and the words considered as
+two. The word _mo['u]ntain 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.
+
+s. 361. The following quotation indicates a further cause of perplexity in
+determining between compound words and two words:--
+
+ 1.
+
+ A wet sheet and a blowing gale,
+ A breeze that follows fast;
+ That fills the white and swelling sail,
+ And bends the _gallant mast_.--ALLAN CUNNINGHAM.
+
+ 2.
+
+ Britannia needs no bulwarks,
+ No towers along the steep;
+ Her march is o'er the _mountain-wave_,
+ Her home is on the deep.--THOMAS CAMPBELL.
+
+To speak first of the term _gallant mast_. If _gallant_ mean _brave_, there
+are _two words_. If the words be two, there is a stronger accent on _mast_.
+If the accent on _mast_ be stronger, the rhyme with _fast_ is more
+complete; in other words, the metre favours the notion of the words being
+considered as _two_. _Gallant-mast_, however, is a compound word, with an
+especial nautical meaning. In this case the accent is stronger on _gal-_
+and weaker on -mast. This, however, is not the state of things that the
+metre favours. The same applies to _mountain wave_. The same person who in
+prose would throw a stronger accent on _mount-_ and a weaker one on _wave_
+(so dealing with the word as a compound), might, in poetry, the words
+_two_, by giving to the last syllable a parity of accent.
+
+The following quotation from Ben Jonson may be 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._
+
+s. 362. _On certain words wherein the fact of their being compound is
+obscured._--Composition is the addition of a word to a word, derivation is
+the addition of certain letters or syllables to a word. In a compound form
+each element has a separate and independent existence; in a derived form,
+only one of the elements has such. Now it is very possible that in an older
+stage of a language two words may exist, may be put together, and may so
+form a compound, each word having, then, a separate and independent
+existence. In a later stage of language, however, only one of these words
+may have a separate and independent existence, the other having become
+obsolete. In this case a compound word would take the appearance of a
+derived one, since but one of its elements could be exhibited as a separate
+and independent word. Such is the case with, amongst others, the word
+_bishop-ric_. In the present language the word _ric_ has no separate and
+independent existence. For all this, the word is a true compound, since, in
+Anglo-Saxon, we have the noun _r['i]ce_ as a separate, independent word,
+signifying _kingdom_ or _domain_.
+
+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.
+
+s. 363. "Subject to a few exceptions, it may be laid down, that _there is
+no true composition unless there is either a change of form or a change of
+accent_."--Such is the statement made in s. 358. The first class of
+exceptions consists of those words where the natural tendency to disparity
+of accent is traversed by some rule of euphony. For example, let two words
+be put together, which at their point of contact form a combination of
+sounds foreign to our habits of pronunciation. The rarity of the
+combination will cause an effort in utterance. The effort in utterance will
+cause an accent to be laid on the latter half of the compound. This will
+equalize the accent, and abolish the disparity. The word _monkshood_, the
+name of a flower (_aconitum napellus_), where, to my ear at least, there is
+quite as much accent on the -hood as on the _monks-_, may serve in the way
+of illustration. _Monks_ is one word, _hood_ another. When joined together,
+the h- of the -hood is put in immediate apposition with the s of the
+_monks-_. Hence the combination _monkshood_. At the letters s and h is the
+point of contact. Now the sound of s followed immediately by the sound of h
+is a true aspirate. But true aspirates are rare in the English language.
+Being of rare occurrence, the pronunciation of them is a matter of
+attention and effort; and this attention and effort create an accent which
+otherwise would be absent. Hence words like _m['o]nks-h['o]od_,
+_well-h['e]ad_, and some others.
+
+Real reduplications of consonants, as in _h['o]p-p['o]le_, 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.
+
+s. 364. 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 _upst['a]nding_. Here it should be remembered,
+that words like _haph['a]zard_, _foolh['a]rdy_, _uph['o]lder_, and
+_withh['o]ld_ come under the first class of the exceptions.
+
+s. 365. The third class of exceptions contains words like _perch['a]nce_
+and _perh['a]ps_. 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 we owe to the multiplicity of
+elements (classical and Gothic) in the English language.
+
+s. 366. _Peacock_, _peahen_.--If these words be rendered masculine or
+feminine by the addition of the elements -cock and -hen, the statements
+made in the beginning of the present chapter are invalidated. Since, if the
+word _pea-_ be particularized, qualified, or defined by the words -cock and
+-hen, the _second_ term defines or particularises the _first_, which is
+contrary to the rule of s. 356. The truth, however, is, that the words
+-cock and -hen are defined by the prefix _pea-_. Preparatory to the
+exhibition of this, let us remember that the word _pea_ (although now found
+in composition only) is a true and independent substantive, the name of a
+species of fowl, like _pheasant_, _partridge_, or any other appellation. It
+is the Latin _pavo_, German _pfau_. Now if the word _peacock_ mean a _pea_
+(_pfau_ or _pavo_) that is a male, then do _wood-cock_, _black-cock_, and
+_bantam-cock_, mean _woods_, _blacks_, and _bantams_ that are male. Or if
+the word _peahen_ mean a _pea_ (_pfau_ or _pavo_) that is female, then do
+_moorhen_ and _guineahen_ mean _moors_ and _guineas_ that are female.
+Again, if a _peahen_ mean a _pea_ (_pfau_ or _pavo_) that is female, then
+does the compound _pheasant-hen_ mean the same as _hen-pheasant_; which is
+not the case. The fact is that _peacock_ means a _cock that is a pea_
+(_pfau_ or _pavo_); _peahen_ means a _hen that is a pea_ (_pfau_ or
+_pavo_); and, finally, _peafowl_ means a _fowl that is a pea_ (_pfau_ or
+_pavo_). In the same way _moorfowl_ means, not a _moor that is connected
+with a fowl_, but a _fowl that is connected with a moor_.
+
+s. 367. It must be clear that in every compound word there are, at least,
+two parts; i.e., the whole or part of the original, and the whole or part
+of the superadded word. In the most perfect forms of inflection, however,
+there is a _third_ element, viz., a vowel, consonant, or syllable that
+joins the first word with the second.
+
+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.
+
+s. 368. _Improper compounds._--The -s- in words like _Thur-s-day_,
+_hunt-s-man_, may be one of two things.
+
+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.
+
+s. 369. _Decomposites._--"Composition is the joining together of _two_
+words."--See s. 357.
+
+Words like _mid-ship-man_, _gentle-man-like_, &c., where the number of
+verbal elements seems to amount to _three_, are no exception to this rule;
+since _compound radicals_ like _midship_ and _gentleman_, are, for the
+purposes of composition, single words. Compounds wherein one element is
+compound are called _decomposites_.
+
+s. 370. 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_, &c.
+
+These last-mentioned terms give us obsolete words preserved in composition.
+The former give us obsolete words preserved in combination.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER XXXII.
+
+ON DERIVATION AND INFLECTION.
+
+s. 371. _Derivation_, like _etymology_, is a word used in a wide and in a
+limited sense. In the wide sense of the term, every word, except it be in
+the simple form of a root, is a derived word. In this sense the cases,
+numbers, and genders of nouns, the persons, moods, and tenses of verbs, the
+ordinal numbers, the diminutives, and even the compound words, are alike
+matters of derivation. In the wide sense of the term the word _fathers_,
+from _father_, is equally in a state of derivation with the word _strength_
+from _strong_.
+
+In the use of the word, even in its limited sense, there is considerable
+laxity and uncertainty.
+
+_Gender_, _number_, _case_.--These have been called the _accidents_ of the
+noun, and these it has been agreed to separate from derivation in its
+stricter sense, or from derivation properly so called, and to class
+together under the name of declension. Nouns are _declined_.
+
+_Person_, _number_, _tense_, _voice_.--These have been called the
+_accidents_ of a verb, and these it has been agreed to separate from
+derivation properly so called, and to class together under the name of
+conjugation. Verbs are _conjugated_.
+
+Conjugation and declension constitute inflection. Nouns and verbs, speaking
+generally, are inflected.
+
+Inflection, a part of derivation in its wider sense, is separated from
+derivation properly so called, or from derivation in its limited sense.
+
+The degrees of comparison, or certain derived forms of adjectives; the
+ordinals, or certain derived forms of the numerals; the diminutives, &c.,
+or certain derived forms of the substantive, have been separated from
+derivation properly so called, and considered as parts of inflection. I am
+not certain, however, that for so doing there is any better reason than
+mere convenience.
+
+Derivation proper, the subject of the present chapter, comprises all the
+changes that words undergo, which are not referable to some of the
+preceding heads. As such, it is, in its details, a wider field than even
+composition. The details, however, are not entered into.
+
+s. 372. Derivation proper may be divided according to a variety of
+principles. Amongst others--
+
+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_,
+_haegel_, _naegel_, _segel_, _taegel_, _sawel_.--These words are by the
+best grammarians considered as derivatives. Now, with these words I cannot
+do what was done with the word _strength_, I cannot take from them the part
+which I look upon as the derivational addition, and after that leave an
+independent word. _Strength_ -th is a true word; _fowl_ or _fugel_ -l is no
+true word. If I believe these latter words to be derivations at all, I do
+it because I find in words like _harelle_, &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 derivational forms as to arrange combinations like -en (whose
+effect is to give the idea of the verb) in one order; whilst combinations
+like -th (whose effect is, as in the word _strength_, to give the idea of
+abstraction) form another order.
+
+III. _According to the form._--Sometimes the derivational element is a
+vowel (as the -ie in _doggie_), sometimes a consonant (as the -th in
+_strength_), sometimes a vowel and consonant combined; in other words a
+syllable (as the -en, in _whiten_), sometimes a change of vowel without any
+addition (as the -i in _tip_, compared with _top_), sometimes a change of
+consonant without any addition (as the z in _prize_, compared with
+_price_). Sometimes it is a change of accent, like a _s['u]rvey_, compared
+with _to surv['e]y_. To classify derivations in this manner, is to classify
+them according to their form.
+
+IV. _According to the historical origin of the derivational elements._
+
+V. _According to the number of the derivational elements._--In _fisher_, as
+compared with _fish_, there is but one derivational affix. In _fishery_, as
+compared with _fish_, the number of derivational elements is two.
+
+s. 373. In words like _bishopric_, and many others mentioned in the last
+Chapter, we had compound words under the appearance of derived ones; in
+words like _upmost_, and many others, we have derivation under the
+appearance of composition.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER XXXIII.
+
+ADVERBS.
+
+s. 374. _Adverbs._--The adverbs are capable of being classified after a
+variety of principles.
+
+Firstly, they may be divided according to their meaning. In this case we
+speak of the adverbs of _time_, _place_, _number_, _manner_.
+
+s. 375. _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.
+
+Adverbs differ from nouns and verbs in being susceptible of one sort of
+inflection only, viz., that of degree.
+
+s. 376. Secondly, adverbs may be divided according to their form and
+origin.
+
+_Better_, _worse_.--Here the words are sometimes adverbs; sometimes
+adjectives.--_This book is better than that_--here _better_ agrees with
+_book_, and is, therefore, adjectival. _This looks better than that_--here
+_better_ qualifies _looks_, and is therefore adverbial. Again; _to do a
+thing with violence_ is equivalent _to do a thing violently_. This shows
+how adverbs may arise out of cases. In words like the English _better_, the
+Latin _vi_ = _violenter_, the Greek [Greek: kalon] = [Greek: kalos], we
+have adjectives in their degrees, and substantives in their cases, with
+adverbial powers. In other words, nouns are deflected from their natural
+sense to an adverbial one. Adverbs of this kind are adverbs of
+_deflection_.
+
+_Brightly_, _bravely_.--Here an adjective is rendered adverbial by the
+addition of the derivative syllable -ly. Adverbs like _brightly_, &c., may
+be called adverbs of _derivation_.
+
+_Now_.--This word has not satisfactorily been shown to have originated as
+any other part of speech but as an adverb. Words of this sort are adverbs
+_absolute_.
+
+s. 377. _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_.
+
+s. 378. Adverbs of deflection may originally have been--
+
+a. _Substantive_; as _needs_ in such expressions as _I needs must go_.
+
+b. _Adjectives_; as the _sun shines bright_.
+
+c. _Prepositions_; as _I go in_, _we go out_; though, it should be added,
+that in this case we may as reasonably derive the preposition from the
+adverb as the adverb from the preposition.
+
+s. 379. Adjectives of deflection derived from substantives may originally
+have been--
+
+a. _Substantives in the _genitive_ case_; as _needs_.
+
+b. _Substantives in the _dative_ case_; as _whil-om_, an antiquated word
+meaning _at times_, and often improperly spelt _whilome_. In such an
+expression as _wait a while_, the word still exists; and _while_ = _time_,
+or rather _pause_; since, in Danish, _hvile_ = _rest_.
+
+_El-se_ (for _ell-es_); _unawar-es_; _eftsoon-s_ are _adjectives_ in the
+genitive case. _By rights_ is a word of the same sort; the -s being the
+sign of the genitive singular like the -s in _father's_, and not of the
+accusative plural like the -s in _fathers_.
+
+_Once_ (_on-es_); _twice_ (_twi-es_); _thrice_ (_thri-es_) are _numerals_
+in the genitive case.
+
+s. 380. _Darkling_.--This is no participle of a verb _darkle_, but an
+adverb of derivation, like _unwaring[^u]n_ = _unawares_, Old High German;
+_stillinge_ = _secretly_, Middle High German; _blindlings_ = _blindly_, New
+High German; _darnungo_ = _secretly_, Old Saxon; _nichtinge_ = _by night_,
+Middle Dutch; _blindeling_ = _blindly_, New Dutch; _baeclinga_ =
+_backwards_, _handlunga_ = _hand to hand_, Anglo-Saxon; and, finally,
+_blindlins_, _backlins_, _darklins_, _middlins_, _scantlins_, _stridelins_,
+_stowlins_, in Lowland Scotch.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER XXXIV.
+
+ON CERTAIN ADVERBS OF PLACE.
+
+s. 381. It is a common practice for languages to express by different
+modifications of the same root the three following ideas:--
+
+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_.
+
+s. 382. It is also a common practice of language to depart from the
+original expression of each particular idea, and to interchange the signs
+by which they are expressed; so that a word originally expressive of simple
+position or _rest in a place_ may be used instead of the word expressive of
+direction, _or motion between two places_. Hence we say, _come here_, when
+_come hither_ would be the more correct expression.
+
+s. 383. The full amount of change in this respect may be seen from the
+following table, illustrative of the forms _here_, _hither_, _hence_.
+
+ _Moeso-Gothic_ thar, thath, thathro, _there, thither, thence_.
+ h[^e]r, hith, hidr[^o], _here, hither, hence_.
+ _Old High hu[^a]r, huara, huanana, _where, whither, whence_.
+ German_ d[^a]r, dara, danana, _there, thither, thence_.
+ hear, h[^e]ra, hinana, _here, hither, hence_.
+ _Old Saxon_ huar, huar, huanan, _where, whither, whence_.
+ thar, thar, thanan, _there, thither, thence_.
+ h[^e]r, her, henan, _here, hither, hence_.
+ _Anglo-Saxon_ thar, thider, thonan, _there, thither, thence_.
+ hvar, hvider, hvonan, _where, whither, whence_.
+ h[^e]r, hider, henan, _here, hither, hence_.
+ _Old Norse_ thar, thadhra, thadhan, _there, thither, thence_.
+ hvar, hvert, hvadhan, _where, whither, whence_.
+ h[^e]r, hedhra, hedhan, _here, hither, hence_.
+ _Middle High d[^a], dan, dannen, _there, thither, thence_.
+ German_ w[^a], war, wannen, _where, whither, whence_.
+ hie, her, hennen, _here, hither, hence_.
+ _Modern High da, dar, dannen, _there, thither, thence_.
+ German_ wo, wohin, wannen, _where, whither, whence_.
+ hier, her, hinnen, _here, hither, hence_.
+
+s. 384. Local terminations of this kind, in general, were commoner in the
+earlier stages of language than at present. The following are from the
+Moeso-Gothic:--
+
+ Innathr[^o] = _from within_.
+ Utathr[^o] = _from without_.
+ Iuthathr[^o] = _from above_.
+ F['a]irrathr[^o] = _from afar_.
+ Allathr[^o] = _from all quarters_.
+
+s. 385. The -ce ( = es) in _hen-ce_, _when-ce_, _then-ce_, has yet to be
+satisfactorily explained. The Old English is _whenn-es_, _thenn-es_. As
+far, therefore, as the spelling is concerned, they are in the same
+predicament with the word _once_, which is properly _on-es_, the genitive
+of _one_. This origin is probable, but not certain.
+
+s. 386. _Yonder_.--In the Moeso-Gothic we have the following forms:
+_j['a]inar_, _j['a]ina_, _j['a]nthr[^o]_ = _illic_, _illuc_, _illinc_. They
+do not, however, quite explain the form _yon-d-er_. It is not clear whether
+the d = the -d in _j[^a]ind_, or the th in _jainthro_.
+
+s. 387. _Anon_, is 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, _enont_, _ennont_; Middle High German, _enentlig_,
+_jenunt_ = _beyond_.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER XXXV.
+
+ON WHEN, THEN, AND THAN.
+
+s. 388. The Anglo-Saxon adverbs are _whenne_ and _thenne_ = _when_, _then_.
+
+The masculine accusative cases of the relative and demonstrative pronoun
+are _hwaene_ (_hwone_) and _thaene_ (_thone_).
+
+Notwithstanding the difference, the first form is a variety of the second;
+so that the adverbs _when_ and _then_ are really pronominal in origin.
+
+s. 389. As to the word _than_, the conjunction of comparison, it is another
+form 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; and in Scotch and certain provincial dialects we actually find
+_than_ instead of _then_.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER XXXVI.
+
+PREPOSITIONS AND CONJUNCTIONS.
+
+s. 390. _Prepositions._--Prepositions are wholly unsusceptible of
+inflection.
+
+s. 391. _Conjunctions._--Conjunctions, like prepositions, are wholly
+unsusceptible of inflection.
+
+s. 392. _Yes_, _no_.--Although _not_ may be considered to be an adverb,
+_nor_ a conjunction, and _none_ a noun, these two words, the direct
+categorical affirmative, and the direct categorical negative, are referable
+to none of the current parts of speech. Accurate grammar places them in a
+class by themselves.
+
+s. 393. _Particles._--The word particle is a collective term for all those
+parts of speech that are _naturally_ unsusceptible of inflection;
+comprising, 1, interjections; 2, direct categorical affirmatives; 3, direct
+categorical negatives; 4, absolute conjunctions; 5, absolute prepositions;
+6, adverbs unsusceptible of degrees of comparison; 7, inseparable prefixes.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER XXXVII.
+
+ON THE GRAMMATICAL POSITION OF THE WORDS MINE AND THINE.
+
+s. 394. The inflection of pronouns has its natural peculiarities in
+language. It has also its natural difficulties in philology. These occur
+not in one language in particular, but in all generally.
+
+The most common peculiarity in the grammar of pronouns is the fact of what
+may be called their _convertibility_. Of this _convertibility_ the
+following statements serve as illustration:--
+
+1. _Of case._--In our own language the words _my_ and _thy_ although at
+present possessives, were previously datives, and, earlier still,
+accusatives. Again, the accusative _you_ replaces the nominative _ye_, and
+_vice vers[^a]_.
+
+2. _Of number._--The words _thou_ and _thee_ are, except in the mouths of
+Quakers, obsolete. The plural forms, _ye_ and _you_, have replaced them.
+
+3. _Of person._--The Greek language gives us examples of this in the
+promiscuous use of [Greek: nin], [Greek: min], [Greek: sphe], and [Greek:
+heautou]; 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.
+
+s. 395. 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.
+
+s. 396. 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.
+
+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 _thin_, the older forms of _mine_ and _thine_,
+are treated as genitives or possessives.
+
+s. 397. This gives us two views of the words _my_ and _thy_.
+
+a. They may be genitives or possessives, which were originally datives or
+accusatives; in which case they are deduced from the Anglo-Saxon _mec_ and
+_thec_.
+
+b. They may be the Anglo-Saxon _min_ and _thin_, _minus_ the final -n.
+
+Each of these views has respectable supporters. The former is decidedly
+preferred by the present writer.
+
+s. 398. What, however, are _thine_ and _mine_? Are they adjectives like
+_meus_, _tuus_, and _suus_, or cases like _mei_, _tui_, _sui_, in Latin,
+and _hi-s_ in English?
+
+It is no answer to say that sometimes they are one and sometimes the other.
+They were not so originally. They did not begin with meaning two things at
+once; on the contrary, they were either possessive cases, of which the
+power became subsequently adjectival, or adjectives, of which the power
+became subsequently possessive.
+
+s. 399. In Anglo-Saxon and in Old Saxon there is but one form to express
+the Latin _mei_ (or _tui_), on the one side, and _meus_, _mea_, _meum_ (or
+_tuus_, &c.), on the other. In several other Gothic tongues, however, there
+was the following difference of form:
+
+ _Moeso-Gothic_ meina = _mei_ as opposed to meins = _meus_.
+ theina = _tui_ -- theins = _tuus_.
+ _Old High German_ m[^i]n = _mei_ -- m[^i]ner = _meus_.
+ d[^i]n = _tui_ -- d[^i]ner = _tuus_.
+ _Old Norse_ min = _mei_ -- minn = _meus_.
+ thin = _tui_ -- thinn = _tuus_.
+ _Middle Dutch_ m[^i]ns = _mei_ -- m[^i]n = _meus_.
+ d[^i]ns = _tui_ -- d[^i]n = _tuus_.
+ _Modern High German_ mein = _mei_ -- meiner = _meus_.
+ dein = _tui_ -- deiner = _tuus_.
+
+In these differences of form lie the best reasons for the assumption of a
+genitive case, as the origin of an adjectival form; and, undoubtedly, in
+those languages where both forms occur, it is convenient to consider one as
+a case and one as an adjective.
+
+s. 400. But this is not the present question. In Anglo-Saxon there is but
+one form, _min_ and _thin_ = _mei_ and _meus_, _tui_ and _tuus_,
+indifferently. Is this form an oblique case or an adjective?
+
+This involves two sorts of evidence.
+
+s. 401. _Etymological evidence._--Assuming two _powers_ for the words _min_
+and _thin_, one genitive, and one adjectival, which is the original one?
+Or, going beyond the Anglo-Saxon, assuming that of two _forms_ like _meina_
+and _meins_, the one has been derived from the other, which is the
+primitive, radical, primary, or original one?
+
+Men, from whom it is generally unsafe to differ, consider that the
+adjectival form is the derived one; and, as far as forms like _m[^i]ner_,
+as opposed to _m[^i]n_, are concerned, the evidence of the foregoing list
+is in their favour. But what is the case with the Middle Dutch? The
+genitive _m[^i]ns_ is evidently the derivative of _m[^i]n_.
+
+The reason why the forms like _m[^i]ner_ seem derived is because they are
+longer and more complex than the others. Nevertheless, it is by no means an
+absolute rule in philology that the least compound form is the oldest. A
+word may be adapted to a secondary meaning by a change in its parts in the
+way of omission, as well as by a change in the way of addition.
+
+s. 402. 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. _Cujum_ (as in _cujum pecus_) and
+_sestertium_ are Latin instances of a nominative case being evolved from an
+oblique one.
+
+s. 403. _Syntactic evidence._--If in Anglo-Saxon we found such expressions
+as _doel min_ = _pars mei_, _hoelf thin_ = _dimidium tui_, we should have a
+reason, as far as it went, for believing in the existence of a true
+genitive. Such instances, however, have yet to be quoted.
+
+s. 404. Again--as _min_ and _thin_ are declined like adjectives, even as
+_meus_ and _tuus_ are so declined, we have means of ascertaining their
+nature from the form they take in certain constructions; thus, _mi-nra_ =
+_me-orum_, and _min-re_ = _me-ae_, are the genitive plural and the dative
+singular respectively. Thus, too, the Anglo-Saxon for _of thy eyes_ should
+be _eagena thinra_, and the Anglo-Saxon for _to my widow_, should be
+_wuduwan minre_; just as in Latin, they would be _oculorum tuorum_, and
+_viduae meae._
+
+If, however, instead of this we find such expressions as _eagena thin_, or
+_wuduwan min_, we find evidence in favour of a genitive case; for then the
+construction is not one of concord, but one of government, and the words
+_thin_ and _min_ must be construed as the Latin forms _tui_ and _mei_ would
+be in _oculorum mei_, and _viduae mei_; viz.: as genitive cases. Now,
+whether a sufficient proportion of such constructions exist or not, they
+have not yet been brought forward.
+
+Such instances, even if quoted, would not be conclusive.
+
+s. 405. Why would they not be conclusive? Because _even of the adjective
+there are uninflected forms_.
+
+As early as the Moeso-Gothic stage of our language, we find rudiments of
+this omission of the inflection. The possessive pronouns in the _neuter
+singular_ sometimes take the inflection, sometimes appear as crude forms,
+_nim thata badi theinata_ = [Greek: airon sou ton krabbaton] (Mark ii. 9),
+opposed to _nim thata badi thein_, two verses afterwards. So also with
+_mein_ and _meinata_. It is remarkable that this omission should begin with
+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_, _s[^i]n
+quen[^a]_, _min dohter_, _sinaz l[^i]b_. In a few cases, when the pronoun
+comes after, even the _oblique_ cases drop the inflection.
+
+_Middle High German._--_Preceding_ the noun, the nominative of all genders
+is destitute of inflection; _s[^i]n l[^i]b_, _m[^i]n ere_, _d[^i]n l[^i]b_,
+&c. _Following_ the nouns, the oblique cases do the same; _ine herse
+s[^i]n_. 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_.
+
+s. 406. Now by assuming the extension of the Middle High German omission of
+the inflection to the Anglo-Saxon; and by supposing it to affect the words
+in question in _all_ positions (i.e., both before and after their nouns),
+we may explain the constructions in question, in case they occur. But, as
+already stated, no instances of them have been quoted.
+
+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 _the_, as compared
+with the inflected _thaet_.
+
+s. 407. Hence, the evidence required in order to make a single instance of
+_min_ or _thin_, the _necessary_ equivalents to _mei_ and _tui_, rather
+than to _meus_ and _tuus_, must consist in the quotation from the
+Anglo-Saxon of some text, wherein _min_ or _thin_ occurs with a feminine
+substantive, in an _oblique_ case, the pronoun _preceding_ the noun. When
+this has been done, it will be time enough to treat _mine_ and _thine_ as
+the equivalents to _mei_ and _tui_, rather than as those to _meus_ and
+_tuus_.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER XXXVIII.
+
+ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE WEAK PRAETERITE.
+
+s. 408. The remote origin of the weak praeterite in -d or -t, has been
+considered by Grimm. He maintains that it is the d in _d-d_, the
+reduplicate praeterite of _do_. In all the Gothic languages the termination
+of the past tense is either -da, -ta, -de, -dhi, -d, -t, or -ed, for the
+singular, and -don, -ton, -t[^u]m[^e]s, or -dhum, for the plural; in other
+words, d, or an allied sound, appears once, if not oftener. In the _plural_
+praeterite of the _Moeso-Gothic_, however, we have something more, viz.,
+the termination _-d[^e]dum_; as _nas-id[^e]dum_, _nas-id[^e]duth_,
+_nas-idedun_, from _nas-ja_; _s[^o]k-id[^e]dum_, _s[^o]k-id[^e]duth_,
+_s[^o]k-id[^e]dun_, from _s[^o]k-ja_; _salb-[^o]dedum_,
+_salb-[^o]d[^e]duth_, _salb-[^o]d[^e]dun_, from _salb[^o]_. Here there is a
+second d. The same takes place with the dual form _salb-[^o]d[^e]duts_, and
+with the subjunctive forms, _salb-[^o]d[^e]djan_, _salb-[^o]d[^e]duts_,
+_salb-[^o]dedi_, _salb-[^o]d[^e]deits_, _salb-[^o]d[^e]deima_,
+_salb-[^o]dedeith_, _salb-[^o]dedina_. The English phrase, _we did salve_,
+as compared with _salb-[^o]dedum_, is confirmatory of this.
+
+s. 409. Some remarks of Dr. Trithen's on the Slavonic praeterite, in the
+"Transactions of the Philological Society," induce me to prefer a different
+doctrine, and to identify the -d in words like _moved_, &c., with the -t of
+the passive participles of the Latin language; as found in mon-it-us,
+voc-at-us, rap-t-us, and probably in Greek forms like [Greek: tuph-th-eis].
+
+1. The Slavonic praeterite 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 praeterite is a participle. If,
+instead of saying _ille amavit_, the Latins said _ille amatus_, whilst,
+instead of saying _illa amavit_, they said _illa amata_, they would exactly
+use the grammar of the Slavonians.
+
+3. Hence, as one class of languages, at least, gives us the undoubted fact
+of an active praeterite being identical with a passive participle, and as
+the participle and praeterite in question are nearly identical, we have a
+fair reason for believing that the d, in the English active praeterite, is
+the d of the participle, which in its turn, is the t of the Latin passive
+participle.
+
+s. 410. The following extract gives Dr. Trithen's remarks on the Slavonic
+verb in his own words:--
+
+ "A peculiarity which distinguishes the grammar of all the Slavish
+ languages, consists in the use of the past participle, taken in an
+ active sense, for the purpose of expressing the praeterite. This
+ participle generally ends in l; and much uncertainty prevails both as
+ to its origin and its relations, though the termination has been
+ compared by various philologists with similar affixes in the Sanscrit,
+ and the classical languages.
+
+ "In the Old Slavish, or the language of the church, there are three
+ methods of expressing the past tense: one of them consists in the union
+ of the verb substantive with the participle; as,
+
+ _Rek esm'_ _chital esmi'_
+ _Rek esi'_ _chital esi'_
+ _Rek est'_ _chital est'_.
+
+ "In the corresponding tense of the Slavonic dialect we have the verb
+ substantive placed before the participle:
+
+ _Ya sam imao_ _mi' smo imali_
+ _Ti si imao_ _vi' ste imali_
+ _On ye imao_ _omi su imali_.
+
+ "In the Polish it appears as a suffix:
+
+ _Czytalem_ _czytalismy_
+ _Czytales_ _czytaliscie_
+ _Czytal_ _czytalie_.
+
+ "And in the Servian it follows the participle:
+
+ _Igrao sam_ _igrali smo_
+ _Igrao si_ _igrali ste_
+ _Igrao ye_ _igrali su_.
+
+ "The ending -ao, of _igrao_ and _imao_, stands for the Russian _al_, as
+ in some English dialects a' is used for _all_."
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+PART V.
+
+SYNTAX.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+CHAPTER I.
+
+ON SYNTAX IN GENERAL.
+
+s. 411. The word _syntax_ is derived from the Greek _syn_ (_with_ or
+_together_) and _taxis_ (_arrangement_). It relates to the arrangement, or
+putting together, of words. Two or more words must be used before there can
+be any application of syntax.
+
+_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.
+
+s. 412. In the English, as in all other languages, it is convenient to
+notice certain so-called figures of speech. They always furnish convenient
+modes of expression, and sometimes, as in the case of the one immediately
+about to be noticed, _account_ for facts.
+
+s. 413. _Personification._--The ideas of apposition and collectiveness
+account for the apparent violations of the concord of number. The idea of
+personification applies to the concord of gender. A masculine or feminine
+gender, characteristic of persons, may be substituted for the neuter
+gender, characteristic of things. In this case the term is said to be
+personified.
+
+_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.
+
+s. 414. _Ellipsis_ (from the Greek _elleipein_ = _to fall short_), or a
+_falling short_, occurs in sentences like _I sent to the bookseller's_.
+Here the word _shop_ or _house_ is understood. Expressions like _to go on
+all fours_, and _to eat of the fruit of the tree_, are reducible to
+ellipses.
+
+s. 415. _Pleonasm_ (from the Greek _pleoazein_ = _to be in excess_) occurs
+in sentences like _the king, he reigns_. Here the word _he_ is
+superabundant.
+
+_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.
+
+s. 416. _The figure zeugma._--_They wear a garment like that of the
+Scythians, but a language peculiar to themselves._--The verb, naturally
+applying to _garment_ only, is here used to govern _language_. This is
+called in Greek, _zeugma_ (junction).
+
+s. 417. _My paternal home was made desolate, and he himself was
+sacrificed._--The sense of this is plain; _he_ means _my father_. Yet no
+such substantive as _father_ has gone before. It is supplied, however, from
+the word _paternal_. The sense indicated by _paternal_ gives us a subject
+to which he can refer. In other words, the word _he_ is understood,
+according to what is indicated, rather than according to what is expressed.
+This figure in Greek is called _pros to semainomenon_ (_according to the
+thing indicated_).
+
+s. 418.--_Apposition,_--_Caesar, the Roman emperor, invades
+Britain._---Here the words _Roman emperor_ explain, or define, the word
+_Caesar_; and the sentence, filled up, might stand, _Caesar, that is, the
+Roman emperor_, &c. Again, the words _Roman emperor_ might be wholly
+ejected; or, if not ejected, they might be thrown into a parenthesis. The
+practical bearing of this fact is exhibited by changing the form of the
+sentence, and inserting the conjunction _and_. In this case, instead of one
+person, two are spoken of, and the verb _invades_ must be changed from the
+singular to the plural.
+
+Now the words _Roman emperor_ are said to be in apposition to _Caesar_.
+They constitute, not an additional idea, but an explanation of the original
+one. They are, as it were, _laid alongside_ (_appositi_) of the word
+_Caesar_. 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.
+
+s. 419. _Collectiveness as opposed to plurality._--In sentences like _the
+meeting _was_ large_, _the multitude _pursue_ pleasure_, _meeting_ and
+_multitude_ are each collective nouns; that is, although they present the
+idea of a single object, that object consists of a plurality of
+individuals. Hence, _pursue_ is put in the plural number. To say, however,
+_the meeting were large_ would sound improper. The number of the verb that
+shall accompany a collective noun depends upon whether the idea of the
+multiplicity of individuals, or that of the unity of the aggregate, shall
+predominate.
+
+_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_.
+
+s. 420. _The reduction of complex forms to simple ones._--Take, for
+instance, the current illustration, viz., _the-king-of-Saxony's
+army_.--Here the assertion is, not that the army belongs to _Saxony_, but
+that it belongs to the _king of Saxony_; which words must, for the sake of
+taking a true view of the construction, be dealt with as a single word in
+the possessive case. Here two cases are dealt with as one; and a complex
+term is treated as a single word.
+
+The same reason applies to phrases like _the two king Williams_. If we say
+the _two kings William_, we must account for the phrase by apposition.
+
+s. 421. _True notion of the part of speech in use._--In _he is gone_, the
+word _gone_ must be considered as equivalent to _absent_; that is, as an
+adjective. Otherwise the expression is as incorrect as the expression _she
+is eloped_. Strong participles are adjectival oftener than weak ones: their
+form being common to many adjectives.
+
+_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 _spr['e]can_, a simple infinitive; _to
+speak_, or _speak_ + _to_ = the Anglo-Saxon _to spr['e]canne_, an
+infinitive in the dative case.
+
+s. 422. _Convertibility._--In the English language, the greater part of the
+words may, as far as their form is concerned, be one part of speech as well
+as another. Thus the combinations _s-a-n-th_, or _f-r-e-n-k_, if they
+existed at all, might exist as either nouns or verbs, as either
+substantives or adjectives, as conjunctions, adverbs, or prepositions. This
+is not the case in the Greek languages. There, if a word be a substantive,
+it will probably end in -s; if an infinitive verb, in -ein, &c. The
+bearings of this difference between languages like the English and
+languages like the Greek will soon appear.
+
+At present, it is sufficient to say that a word, originally one part of
+speech (e.g., a noun), may become another (e.g., a verb). This may be
+called the convertibility of words.
+
+There is an etymological convertibility, and a syntactic convertibility;
+and although, in some cases, the line of demarcation is not easily drawn
+between them, the distinction is intelligible and convenient.
+
+s. 423. _Etymological convertibility._--The words _then_ and _than_, now
+adverbs or conjunctions, were once cases: in other words, they have been
+converted from one part of speech to another. Or, they may even be said to
+be cases, at the present moment; although only in an historical point of
+view. For the practice of language, they are not only adverbs or
+conjunctions, but they are adverbs or conjunctions exclusively.
+
+s. 424. _Syntactic convertibility._--The combination _to err_, is at this
+moment an infinitive verb. Nevertheless it can be used as the equivalent to
+the substantive _error_.
+
+_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_.
+
+s. 425. _The adjective used as a substantive._--Of these, we have examples
+in expressions like the _blacks of Africa_--_the bitters and sweets of
+life_--_all fours were put to the ground_. These are true instances of
+conversion, and are proved to be so by the fact of their taking a plural
+form.
+
+_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.
+
+s. 426. _Uninflected parts of speech, used as substantive._--When King
+Richard III. says, _none of your ifs_, he uses the word _if_ as a
+substantive = _expressions of doubt_.
+
+So in the expression _one long now_, the word _now_ = _present time_.
+
+s. 427. The convertibility of words in English is very great; and it is so
+because the structure of the language favours it. As few words have any
+peculiar signs expressive of their being particular parts of speech,
+interchange is easy, and conversion follows the logical association of
+ideas unimpeded.
+
+_The convertibility of words is in the inverse ratio to the amount of their
+inflection._
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER II.
+
+SYNTAX OF SUBSTANTIVES.
+
+s. 428. The phenomena of convertibility have been already explained.
+
+The remaining points connected with the syntax of substantives, are chiefly
+points of ellipsis.
+
+_Ellipsis of substantives._--The historical view of phrases, like _Rundell
+and Bridge's_, _St. Paul's_, &c., shows that this ellipsis is common to the
+English and the other Gothic languages. Furthermore, it shows that it is
+met with in languages not of the Gothic stock; and, finally, that the class
+of words to which it applies, is, there or thereabouts, the same generally.
+
+s. 429. 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.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER III.
+
+SYNTAX OF ADJECTIVES.
+
+s. 430. _Pleonasm._--Pleonasm can take place with adjectives only in the
+expression of the degrees of comparison. Over and above the etymological
+signs of the comparative and superlative degrees, there may be used the
+superlative words _more_ and _most_.
+
+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.
+
+s. 431. Collocation.--As a general rule, the adjective precedes the
+substantive--_a good man_, not _a man good_.
+
+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_.
+
+s. 432. _Government._--The only adjective that governs a case, is the word
+_like_. In the expression, _this is like him_, &c., the original power of
+the dative remains. This we infer--
+
+1. From the fact that in most languages which have inflections to a
+sufficient extent, the word meaning _like_ governs a dative case.
+
+2. That if ever we use in English any preposition at all to express
+similitude, it is the preposition _to_--_like to me_, _like to death_, &c.
+
+Expressions like _full of meat_, _good for John_, are by no means instances
+of the government of adjectives; the really governing words being the
+prepositions _to_ and _for_ respectively.
+
+s. 433. The positive degree preceded by the adjective _more_, is equivalent
+to the comparative form--e.g., _more wise_ = _wiser_.
+
+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.
+
+ _more fruitful_ _fruitfuller_.
+ _more villainous_ _villainouser_.
+
+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_.
+
+s. 434. In the Chapter on the Comparative Degree is indicated a refinement
+upon the current notions as to the power of the comparative degree, and
+reasons are given for believing that the fundamental notion expressed by
+the comparative inflexion is the idea of comparison or contrast between
+_two_ objects.
+
+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.
+
+s. 435. The absence of inflection simplifies the syntax of adjectives.
+Violations of concord are impossible. We could not make an adjective
+disagree with its substantive if we wished.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER IV.
+
+SYNTAX OF PRONOUNS.
+
+s. 436. _Pleonasm in the syntax of pronouns._--In the following sentences
+the words in italics are pleonastic:
+
+ 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.
+
+s. 437. The fourth has another element of importance. It has given rise to
+the absurd notion that the genitive case in -'s (_father-'s_) is a
+contraction from _his_ (_father his_).
+
+To say nothing about the inapplicability of this rule to feminine genders,
+and plural numbers, the whole history of the Indo-Germanic languages is
+against it.
+
+1. We cannot reduce _the queen's majesty_ to _the queen his majesty_.
+
+2. We cannot reduce _the children's bread_ to _the children his bread_.
+
+3. The Anglo-Saxon forms are in -es, not in _his_.
+
+4. The word _his_ itself must be accounted for; and that cannot be done by
+assuming it to be _he_ + _his_.
+
+5. The -s in _father's_ is the -is in _patris_, and the [Greek: -os] in
+[Greek: pateros].
+
+s. 438. The preceding examples illustrate an apparent paradox, viz., the
+fact of pleonasm and ellipsis being closely allied. _The king he is just_,
+dealt with as a _single_ sentence, is undoubtedly pleonastic. But it is not
+necessary to be considered as a mere simple sentence. _The king_--may
+represent a first sentence incomplete, whilst _he is just_ represents a
+second sentence in full. What is pleonasm in a single sentence is ellipsis
+in a double one.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER V.
+
+THE TRUE PERSONAL PRONOUNS.
+
+s. 439. _Personal pronouns._--The use of the second person plural instead
+of the second singular has been noticed already. This use of one number for
+another is current throughout the Gothic languages. A pronoun so used is
+conveniently called the _pronomen reverentiae_.
+
+s. 440. _Dativus ethicus._--In the phrase
+
+ 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_.
+
+s. 441. _The reflected personal pronoun._--In the English language there is
+no equivalent to the Latin _se_, the German _sich_, and the Scandinavian
+_sik_, and _sig_.
+
+It follows from this that the word _self_ is used to a greater extent than
+would otherwise be the case.
+
+_I strike me_ is awkward, but not ambiguous.
+
+_Thou strikest thee_ is awkward, but not ambiguous.
+
+_He strikes him_ is ambiguous; inasmuch as _him_ may mean either the
+_person who strikes_ or some one else. In order to be clear we add the word
+_self_ when the idea is reflective. _He strikes himself_ is, at once
+idiomatic and unequivocal.
+
+So it is with the plural persons.
+
+_We strike us_ is awkward, but not ambiguous.
+
+_Ye strike you_ is the same.
+
+_They strike them_ is ambiguous.
+
+This shows the value of a reflective pronoun for the third person.
+
+As a general rule, therefore, whenever we use a verb reflectively we use
+the word _self_ in combination with the personal pronoun.
+
+Yet this was not always the case. The use of the simple personal pronoun
+was current in Anglo-Saxon, and that, not only for the first two persons,
+but for the third as well.
+
+The exceptions to this rule are either poetical expressions, or imperative
+moods.
+
+ He sat _him_ down at a pillar's base.--BYRON.
+
+ Sit thee down.
+
+s. 442. _Reflective neuters._--In the phrase _I strike me_, the verb
+_strike_ is transitive; in other words, the word _me_ expresses the object
+of an action, and the meaning is different from the meaning of the simple
+expression _I strike_.
+
+In the phrase _I fear me_ (used by Lord Campbell in his lives of the
+Chancellors), the verb _fear_ is intransitive or neuter; in other words,
+the word _me_ (unless, indeed, _fear_ mean _terrify_), expresses no object
+of any action at all; whilst the meaning is the same as in the simple
+expression _I fear_.
+
+Here the reflective pronoun appears out of place, i.e., after a neuter or
+intransitive verb.
+
+Such a use, however, is but the fragment of an extensive system of
+reflective verbs thus formed, developed in different degrees in the
+different Gothic languages; but in all more than in the English.
+
+s. 443. _Equivocal reflectives._--The proper place of the reflective is
+_after_ the verb.
+
+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.
+
+s. 444. As _his_ and _her_ are genitive cases (and not adjectives), there
+is no need of explaining such combinations as _his mother_, _her father_,
+inasmuch as no concord of gender is expected. The expressions are
+respectively equivalent to
+
+ _mater ejus_, not _mater sua_;
+ _pater ejus_, -- _pater suus_.
+
+s. 445. It has been stated that _its_ is a secondary genitive, and it may
+be added, that it is of late origin in the language. The Anglo-Saxon form
+was _his_, the genitive of _he_ for the neuter and masculine equally.
+Hence, when, in the old writers, we meet _his_, where we expect _its_, we
+must not suppose that any personification takes place, but simply that the
+old genitive common to the two genders is used in preference to the modern
+one limited to the neuter, and irregularly formed.
+
+The following instances are the latest specimens of its use:
+
+ "The apoplexy is, as I take it, a kind of lethargy. I have read the
+ cause of _his_ effects in Galen; _it_ is a kind of deafness."--_2 Henry
+ IV._ i. 2.
+
+ "If the salt have lost _his_ savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned?
+ _It_ is neither fit for the land, nor yet for the dunghill; but men
+ cast _it_ out."--_Luke_ xiv. 35.
+
+ "Some affirm that every plant has _his_ particular fly or caterpillar,
+ which it breeds and feeds."--WALTON'S _Angler_.
+
+ "This rule is not so general, but that _it_ admitteth of _his_
+ exceptions."--CAREW.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER VII.
+
+ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORD SELF.
+
+s. 446. The undoubted constructions of the word _self_, in the present
+state of the cultivated English, are threefold.
+
+1. _Government._--In _my-self_, _thy-self_, _our-selves_, and
+_your-selves_, the construction is that of a common substantive with an
+adjective or genitive case. _My-self_ = _my individuality_, and is
+similarly construed--_mea individualitas_ (or _persona_), or _mei
+individualitas_ (or _persona_).
+
+2. _Apposition._--In _him-self_ and _them-selves_, when accusative, the
+construction is that of a substantive in apposition with a pronoun.
+_Himself_ = _him_, _the individual_.
+
+3. _Composition._--It is only, however, when _himself_ and _themselves_,
+are in the _accusative_ case, that the construction is appositional. When
+they are used as _nominatives_, it must be explained on another principle.
+In phrases like
+
+ _He himself_ was present
+ _They themselves_ were present,
+
+there is neither apposition nor government; _him_ and _them_, being neither
+related to _my_ and _thy_, so as to be governed, nor yet to _he_ and
+_they_, so as to form an apposition. In order to come under one of these
+conditions, the phrases should be either _he his self_ (_they 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.
+
+s. 447. _Her-self_.--The construction here is ambiguous. It is one of the
+preceding constructions. Which, however it is, is uncertain; since _her_
+may be either a so-called genitive, like _my_, or an accusative like _him_.
+
+_Itself_--is also ambiguous. The s may represent the -s in _its_, as well
+as the s- in _self_.
+
+This inconsistency is as old as the Anglo-Saxon stage of the English
+language.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER VIII.
+
+ON THE POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS.
+
+s. 448. The possessive pronouns fall into two classes. The first contains
+the forms like _my_ and _thy_, &c.; the second, those like _mine_ and
+_thine_, &c.
+
+_My_, _thy_, _his_ (as in _his book_), _her_, _its_ (as in _its book_),
+_our_, _your_, _their_, are conveniently considered as the equivalents to
+the Latin forms _mei_, _tui_, _ejus_, _nostrum_, _vestrum_, _eorum_.
+
+_Mine_, _thine_, _his_ (as in _the book is his_), _hers_, _ours_, _yours_,
+_theirs_ are conveniently considered as the equivalents to the Latin forms
+_meus_, _mea_, _meum_; _tuus_, _tua_, _tuum_; _suus_, _sua_, _suum_;
+_noster_, _nostra_, _nostrum_; _vester_, _vestra_, _vestrum_.
+
+s. 449. There is a difference between the construction of _my_ and _mine_.
+We cannot say _this is mine hat_, and we cannot say _this hat is my_.
+Nevertheless, this difference is not explained by any change of
+construction from that of adjectives to that of cases. As far as the syntax
+is concerned the construction of _my_ and _mine_ is equally that of an
+adjective _agreeing_ with a substantive, and of a genitive (or possessive)
+case _governed_ by a substantive.
+
+Now a common genitive case can be used in two ways; either as part of a
+term, or as a whole term (i.e., absolutely).--1. As part of a term--_this
+is John's hat_. 2. As a whole term--_this hat is John's_.
+
+And a common adjective can be used in two ways; either as part of a term,
+or as a whole term (i.e. absolutely).--1. As part of a term--_these are
+good hats_. 2. As a whole term--_these hats are good_.
+
+Now whether we consider _my_, and the words like it, as adjectives or
+cases, they possess only _one_ of the properties just illustrated, i.e.,
+they can only be used as part of a term--_this is my hat_; not _this hat is
+my_.
+
+And whether we consider _mine_, and the words like it, as adjectives or
+cases, they possess only _one_ of the properties just illustrated, i.e.,
+they can only be used as whole terms, or absolutely--_this hat is mine_;
+not _this is mine hat_.
+
+For a full and perfect construction whether of an adjective or a genitive
+case, the possessive pronouns present the phenomenon of being, singly,
+incomplete, but, nevertheless, complementary to each other when taken in
+their two forms.
+
+s. 450. 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_.
+
+s. 451. 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 forms in -'s, like _father's_, not
+as genitive cases but as adjectives. Looking to the logic of the question
+alone he is right, and looking to the practical syntax of the question he
+is right also. He is only wrong on the etymological side of the question.
+
+ "Nomina substantiva apud nos nullum vel generum vel casuum discrimen
+ sortiuntur."--p. 76.
+
+ "Duo sunt adjectivorum genera, a substantivis immediate descendentia,
+ quae semper substantivis suis praeponuntur. Primum quidem adjectivum
+ possessivum libet appellare. Fit autem a quovis substantivo, sive
+ singulari sive plurali, addito -s.--Ut _man's nature_, _the nature of
+ man_, natura humana vel hominis; _men's nature_, natura humana vel
+ hominum; _Virgil's poems_, _the poems of Virgil_, poemata Virgilii vel
+ Virgiliana."--p. 89.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER IX.
+
+THE RELATIVE PRONOUNS.
+
+s. 452. It is necessary that the relative be in the same _gender_ as the
+antecedent--_the man who_--_the woman who_--_the thing which_.
+
+s. 453. It is necessary that the relative be in the same _number_ with the
+antecedent.
+
+s. 454. It is _not_ necessary for the relative to be in the same _case_
+with its antecedent.
+
+ 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.
+
+s. 455. The reason why the relative must agree with its antecedent in both
+number and gender, whilst it need not agree with it in case, is found in
+the following observations.
+
+1. All sentences containing a relative contain two verbs--_John who_ (1)
+_trusts me_ (2) _comes here_.
+
+2. Two verbs express two actions--(1) _trust_ (2) _come_.
+
+3. Whilst, however, the actions are two in number, the person or thing
+which does or suffers them is single--_John_.
+
+4. _He_ (_she_ or _it_) is single _ex vi termini_. The relative expresses
+the _identity_ between the subjects (or objects) 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.
+
+s. 456. 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.
+
+s. 457. _The books I want are here_.--This is a specimen of a true
+ellipsis. In all such phrases in _full_, there are _three_ essential
+elements.
+
+1. The first proposition; as _the books are here_.
+
+2. The second proposition; as _I want_.
+
+3. The word which connects the two propositions, and without which, they
+naturally make separate, independent, unconnected statements.
+
+Now, although true and unequivocal ellipses are scarce, the preceding is
+one of the most unequivocal kind--the word which connects the two
+propositions being wanting.
+
+s. 458. _When there are two words in a clause, each capable of being an
+antecedent, the relative refers to the latter._
+
+1. _Solomon the son of David that slew Goliah_.--This is unexceptionable.
+
+2. _Solomon the son of David who built the temple_.--This is exceptionable.
+
+Nevertheless, it is defensible, on the supposition that
+_Solomon-the-son-of-David_ is a single many-worded name.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER X.
+
+ON THE INTERROGATIVE PRONOUN.
+
+s. 459. Questions are of two sorts, direct and oblique.
+
+_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._
+
+s. 460. Nevertheless, such expressions as _whom do they say that it is?_
+are common, especially in oblique questions.
+
+ "And he axed him and seide, _whom_ seien the people that I am?--Thei
+ answereden and seiden, Jon Baptist--and he seide to hem, But _whom_
+ seien ye that I am?"--WICLIF, _Luke_ ix.
+
+ "Tell me in sadness _whom_ she is you love."--_Romeo and Juliet_, i, 1.
+
+ "And as John fulfilled his course, he said, _whom_ think ye that I
+ am?"--_Acts_ xiii. 25.
+
+This confusion, however, is exceptionable.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER XI.
+
+THE RECIPROCAL CONSTRUCTION.
+
+s. 461. In all sentences containing the statement of a reciprocal or mutual
+action there are in reality two assertions, viz., the assertion that A.
+_strikes_ (or _loves_) B., and the assertion that B. _strikes_ (or _loves_)
+A.; the action forming one, the reaction another. Hence, if the expressions
+exactly coincided with the fact signified, there would always be two
+propositions. This, however, is not the habit of language. Hence arises a
+more compendious form of expression, giving origin to an ellipsis of a
+peculiar kind. Phrases like _Eteocles and Polynices killed each other_ are
+elliptical, for _Eteocles and Polynices killed--each the other_. Here the
+second proposition expands and explains the first, whilst the first
+supplies the verb to the second. Each, however, is elliptic.
+
+s. 462. This is the syntax. As to the power of the words _each_ and _one_
+in the expression (_each other_ and _one another_), I am not prepared to
+say that in the common practice of the English language there is any
+distinction between them. A distinction, however, if it existed, would give
+strength to our language. Where two persons performed a reciprocal action
+on another, the expression might be _one another_; as _Eteocles and
+Polynices killed one another_. Where more than two persons were engaged on
+each side of a reciprocal action, the expression might be _each other_; as,
+_the ten champions praised each other_.
+
+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.--_Hin_ander = the French _l'un l'autre_; whilst _hverandre_ =
+_les uns les autres_.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER XII.
+
+THE INDETERMINATE PRONOUNS.
+
+s. 463. Different nations have different methods of expressing
+indeterminate propositions.
+
+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_, [Greek:
+legetai], _it is said_.
+
+Sometimes the verb is reflective--_si dice_ = _it says itself_, Italian.
+
+Sometimes the plural pronoun of the third person is used. This also is an
+English locution--_they say_ = _the world at large says_.
+
+Finally, the use of some word = _man_ is a common indeterminate expression.
+
+The word _man_ has an indeterminate sense in the Modern German; as _man
+sagt_ = _they say_.
+
+The word _man_ was also used indeterminately in the Old English, although
+it is not so used in the Modern.
+
+In the Old English, the form _man_ often lost the -n, and became
+_me_.--"Deutsche Grammatik." This form is also extinct.
+
+s. 464. 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, 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_.
+
+s. 465. Two other pronouns, or, to speak more in accordance with the
+present habit of the English language, one pronoun, and one adverb of
+pronominal origin, are also used indeterminately, viz., _it_ and _there_.
+
+s. 466. _It_ can be either the subject or the predicate of a sentence,--_it
+is this_, _this is it_, _I am it_, _it is I_. When _it_ is the subject of a
+proposition, the verb necessarily agrees with it, and can be of the
+singular number only; no matter what be the number of the predicate--_it is
+this_, _it is these_.
+
+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.
+
+s. 467. _There_ can only be the predicate of a subject. It differs from
+_it_ in this respect. It follows also that it must differ from _it_ in
+never affecting the number of the verb. This is determined by the nature of
+the subject--_there is this_, _there are these_.
+
+When we say _there is these_, the analogy between the words _these_ and
+_it_ misleads us; the expression being illogical.
+
+Furthermore, although a predicate, _there_ always stands in the beginning
+of propositions, i.e., in the place of the subject. This also misleads.
+
+s. 468. Although _it_, when the subject, being itself singular, absolutely
+requires that its verb should be singular also, there is a tendency to use
+it incorrectly, and to treat it as a plural. Thus, in German, when the
+predicate is plural, the verb joined to the singular form _es_ ( = _it_) is
+plural--_es sind menschen_, literally translated = _it are men_; which,
+though bad English, is good German.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER XIII.
+
+THE ARTICLES.
+
+s. 469. The rule of most practical importance about the articles is the
+rule that determines when the article shall be repeated as often as there
+is a fresh substantive, and when it shall not.
+
+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.
+
+s. 470. The numeral _one_ is naturally single. All the rest are naturally
+plural.
+
+Nevertheless such expressions--_one two_ ( = _one collection of two_), _two
+threes_ ( = _two collections of three_) are legitimate. These are so,
+because the sense of the word is changed. We may talk of several _ones_
+just as we may talk of several _aces_; and of _one two_ just as of _one
+pair_.
+
+Expressions like _the thousand-and-first_ are incorrect. They mean neither
+one thing nor another: 1001st being expressed by _the thousand-and-first_,
+and 1000th + 1st being expressed by _the thousandth and the first_.
+
+Here it may be noticed that, although I never found it to do so, the word
+_odd_ is capable of taking an ordinal form. The _thousand-and-odd-th_ is as
+good an expression as the _thousand-and-eight-th_.
+
+The construction of phrases like the _thousand-and-first_ is the same
+construction as we find in the _king of Saxony's army_.
+
+s. 471. It is by no means a matter of indifference whether we say the _two
+first_ or the _first two_.
+
+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.
+
+s. 472. For the purposes of syntax it is necessary to divide verbs into the
+five following divisions: transitive, intransitive, auxiliary, substantive,
+and impersonal.
+
+_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_.
+
+s. 473. _The auxiliary verbs_ will be noticed fully in Chapter XXIII.
+
+s. 474. The verb _substantive_ has this peculiarity, viz., that for all
+purposes of syntax it is no verb at all. _I speak_ may, logically, be
+reduced to _I am speaking_; in which case it is only the _part_ of a verb.
+Etymologically, indeed, the verb substantive is a verb; inasmuch as it is
+inflected as such: but for the purposes of construction, it is a copula
+only, i.e., it merely denotes the agreement or disagreement between the
+subject and the predicate.
+
+For the _impersonal_ verbs see Chapter XXI.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER XVI.
+
+THE CONCORD OF VERBS.
+
+s. 475. The verb must agree with its subject in person, _I walk_, not _I
+walks_: _he walks_, not _he walk_.
+
+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.
+
+s. 476. In respect to the concord of person the following rules will carry
+us through a portion of the difficulties.
+
+_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.
+
+s. 477. But the expression _it is I your master, who command_ (or
+_commands_) you, is not a single proposition. It is a sentence containing
+two propositions.
+
+ 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 relative, the antecedent belongs to
+the first clause. _It is I, John, who command_ (not _commands_) _you_.
+
+To recapitulate, the train of reasoning has been as follows:--
+
+1. The person of the second verb is the person of the relative.
+
+2. The person of the relative is that of one of two antecedents.
+
+3. Of such two antecedents the relative agrees with the one which stands in
+the same proposition with itself.
+
+4. Which position is determined by the connection or want of connection
+between the substantive antecedent and the verb governed by the relative.
+
+Respecting the person of the verb in the _first_ proposition of a complex
+sentence there is no doubt. _I, your master, who commands you to make
+haste, am_ (not _is_) _in a hurry._ Here, _I am in a hurry_ is the first
+proposition; _who commands you to make haste_, the second.
+
+It is not difficult to see why the construction of sentences consisting of
+two propositions is open to an amount of latitude which is not admissible
+in the construction of single propositions. As long as the different parts
+of a complex idea are contained within the limits of a single proposition,
+their subordinate character is easily discerned. When, however, they amount
+to whole propositions, they take the appearance of being independent
+members of the sentence.
+
+s. 478. _The concord of number._--It is believed that the following three
+rules will carry us through all difficulties of the kind just exhibited.
+
+_Rule 1._ That the verb agrees with the subject, and with nothing but the
+subject. The only way to justify such an expression as _the wages of sin is
+death_, is to consider _death_ not as the subject, but as the predicate; in
+other words, to consider the construction to be, _death is the wages of
+sin_.
+
+_Rule 2._ That, except in the case of the word _there_, the word which
+comes first is generally the subject.
+
+_Rule 3._ That no number of connected singular nouns can govern a plural
+verb, unless they be connected by a copulative conjunction. _The sun _and_
+moon shine_,--_the sun _in conjunction with_ the moon shines_.
+
+s. 479. _Plural subjects with singular predicates._--- The wages of sin
+_are_ death.--Honest men _are_ the salt of the earth.
+
+_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_ deliciae meae.
+ [Greek: Hektor, atar su moi essi pater kai potnia meter,]
+ [Greek: Ede kasignetos, su de moi thaleros parakoites.]
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER XVII.
+
+ON THE GOVERNMENT OF VERBS.
+
+s. 480. The government of verbs is of two sorts, (1.) _objective_, and (2.)
+_modal_.
+
+It is objective where the noun which follows the verb is the name of some
+object affected by the action of the verb,--as _he strikes me_; _he wounds
+the enemy_.
+
+It is modal when the noun which follows the verb is not the name of any
+object affected by the verb, but the name of some object explaining the
+manner in which the action of the verb takes place, the instrument with
+which it is done, the end for which it is done, &c.
+
+The government of all transitive verbs is necessarily objective. It may
+also be modal,--_I strike the enemy with the sword_ = _ferio hostem
+gladio_.
+
+The government of all intransitive verbs can only be modal,--_I walk with
+the stick_. When we say, _I walk the horse_, the word _walk_ has changed
+its meaning, and signifies _make to walk_, and is, by the very fact of its
+being followed by the name of an object, converted from an intransitive
+into a transitive verb.
+
+The modal construction may also be called the _adverbial construction_;
+because the effect of the noun is akin to that of an adverb,--_I fight with
+bravery_ = _I fight bravely_: _he walks a king_ = _he walks regally_. The
+modal (or adverbial) construction, sometimes takes the appearance of the
+objective: inasmuch as intransitive verbs are frequently followed by a
+substantive, e.g., _to sleep the sleep of the righteous_. Here,
+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; which is not the case here. The sentence means, to
+_sleep as the righteous sleep_, or _according to the sleep of the
+righteous_.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER XVIII.
+
+ON THE PARTICIPLES.
+
+s. 481. The present participle, or the participle in -ing, must be
+considered in respect to its relations with the substantive in -ing.
+_Dying-day_ is, probably, no more a participle than _morning-walk_. In
+respect to the syntax of such expressions as the forthcoming, I consider
+that they are _either_ participles or substantives.
+
+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
+pallae de parte foeminae._
+
+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
+_foeminae elevantis_.--_Quid est significatio foeminae elevantis pallam?_
+
+s. 482. The past participle corresponds not with the Greek form [Greek:
+tuptomenos], but with the form [Greek: tetummenos]. _I am beaten_ is
+essentially a combination, expressive not of present but of past time, just
+like the Latin _sum verberatus_. Its Greek equivalent is not [Greek: eimi
+tuptomenos] = _I am a man in the act of being beaten_, but [Greek: eimi
+tetummenos] = _I am a man who has been beaten_. It is past in respect to
+the action, though present in respect to the state brought about by the
+action. This essentially past element in the so-called present expression,
+_I am beaten_, will be again referred to.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER XIX.
+
+ON THE MOODS.
+
+s. 483. The infinitive mood is a noun. The current rule that _when two
+verbs come together the latter is placed in the infinitive mood_, means
+that one verb can govern another only by converting it into a noun--_I
+begin to move_ = _I begin the act of moving_. Verbs, _as verbs_, can only
+come together in the way of apposition--_I irritate_, _I beat_, _I talk at
+him_, _I call him names_, &c.
+
+s. 484. The construction, however, of English infinitives is two fold. (1.)
+Objective. (2.) Gerundial.
+
+When one verb is followed by another without the preposition _to_, the
+construction must be considered to have grown out of the objective case, or
+from the form in -an.
+
+Such is the case with the following words, and, probably, with others:
+
+ I may go, _not_ I may _to_ go.
+ I might go, -- I might _to_ go.
+ I can move, -- I can _to_ move.
+ I could move, -- I could _to_ move.
+ I will speak, -- I will _to_ speak.
+ I would speak, -- I would _to_ speak.
+ I shall wait, -- I shall _to_ wait.
+ I should wait, -- I should _to_ wait.
+ Let me go, -- Let me _to_ go.
+ He let me go, -- He let me _to_ go.
+ I do speak, -- I do _to_ speak.
+ I did speak, -- I did _to_ speak.
+ I dare go, -- I dare _to_ go.
+ I durst go, -- I durst _to_ go.
+
+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.
+
+s. 485. _Imperatives_ have three peculiarities. (1.) They can only, in
+English, be used in the second person--_go thou on_, _get you gone_, &c.:
+(2.) They take pronouns after, instead of before them: (3.) They often omit
+the pronoun altogether.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER XX.
+
+ON THE TENSES.
+
+s. 486. Notwithstanding its name, the present tense in English does not
+express a strictly _present_ action. It rather expresses an habitual one.
+_He speaks well_ = _he is a good speaker_. If a man means to say that he is
+in the act of speaking, he says _I am speaking_.
+
+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_.
+
+s. 487. The English praeterite is the equivalent, not to the Greek perfect
+but the Greek aorist. _I beat_ = [Greek: etupsa] not [Greek: tetupha]. The
+true perfect is expressed, in English, by the auxiliary _have_ + the past
+participle.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER XXI.
+
+SYNTAX OF THE PERSONS OF VERBS.
+
+s. 488. _The concord of persons._--A difficulty that occurs frequently in
+the Latin language is rare in English. In expressions like _ego et ille_
+followed by a verb, there arises a question as to the person in which that
+verb should be used. Is it to be in the first person in order to agree with
+_ego_, or in the _third_ in order to agree with _ille_? For the sake of
+laying down a rule upon these and similar points, the classical grammarians
+arrange the persons (as they do the genders) according to their _dignity_,
+making the verb (or adjective if it be a question of gender) agree with the
+most _worthy_. In respect to persons, the first is more worthy than the
+second, and the second more worthy than the third. Hence, the Latins said--
+
+ _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 pronouns, the verb
+is in the third person. _Either you or I is in the wrong_; _neither you nor
+I is in the wrong_.
+
+2. Whenever the disjunctive is simple (i.e. unaccompanied with the word
+_either_ or _neither_) the verb agrees with the _first_ of the two
+pronouns.
+
+ _I_ (or _he_) _am_ in the wrong.
+ _He_ (or _I_) _is_ in the wrong.
+ _Thou_ (or _he_) _art_ in the wrong.
+ _He_ (or _thou_) _is_ in the wrong.
+
+Now, provided that they are correct, it is clear that the English language
+knows nothing about the relative degrees of dignity between these three
+pronouns; since its habit is to make the verb agree with the one which is
+placed first--whatever may be the person. I am strongly inclined to believe
+that the same is the case in Latin; in which case (in the sentence _ego et
+Balbus sustulimus manus_) _sustulimus_ agrees, in person, with _ego_, not
+because the first person is the worthiest, but because it comes first in
+the proposition,
+
+s. 489. In the Chapter on the Impersonal Verbs, it is stated that the
+construction of _me-thinks_ is peculiar.
+
+This is because in Anglo-Saxon the word _thincan_ = _seem_. Hence
+_me-thinks_ is [Greek: phainetai moi], or _mihi videtur_, and _me_ is a
+_dative_ case, not an _accusative_.
+
+The _thencan_ = _think_, was, in Anglo-Saxon, a different word.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER XXII.
+
+ON THE VOICES OF VERBS.
+
+s. 490. In English there is neither a passive nor a middle voice.
+
+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.
+
+s. 491. The auxiliary verbs, in English, play a most important part in the
+syntax of the language. They may be classified upon a variety of
+principles. The following, however, are all that need here be applied.
+
+A. _Classification of auxiliaries according to their inflection or
+non-inflectional powers._--Inflectional auxiliaries are those that may
+either replace or be replaced by an inflection. Thus--_I am struck_ = the
+Latin _ferior_, and the Greek [Greek: tuptomai]. 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_, [Greek: tuptesthai].
+
+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_ = [Greek: e-tuphthen]. _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 the
+power of a verb as an auxiliary may be a modification of its original
+power; i.e., of the power it has in non-auxiliary constructions. Sometimes
+the difference is very little: the word _let_, in _let us go_, has its
+natural sense of permission unimpaired. Sometimes it is lost altogether.
+_Can_ and _may_ exist only as auxiliaries.
+
+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_.
+
+ "_May_ et _can_, cum eorum praeteritis imperfectis, _might_ et _could_,
+ potentiam innuunt: cum hoc tamen discrimine: _may_ et _might_ vel de
+ jure vel saltem de rei possibilitate, dicuntur, at _can_ et _could_ de
+ viribus agentis."--WALLIS, p. 107.
+
+7. Auxiliary derived from the idea of sufferance--_let_.
+
+8. Auxiliary derived from the idea of necessity--_must_.
+
+ "_Must_ necessitatem innuit. Debeo, oportet, necesse est urere, _I must
+ burn_. Aliquando sed rarius in praeterito dicitur _must_ (quasi ex
+ _must'd_ seu _must't_ contractum). Sic, si de praeterito dicatur, _he
+ must_ (seu _must't_) _be burnt_, oportebat uri seu necesse habuit ut
+ ureretur."--WALLIS, 107.
+
+9. Auxiliary derived from the idea of action--_do_.
+
+C. _Classification of auxiliary verbs in respect to their mode of
+construction._--Auxiliary verbs combine with others in three ways.
+
+1. _With participles._--a) With the present, or active, participle--_I am
+speaking_: b) With the past, or passive, participle--_I am beaten_, _I have
+beaten_.
+
+2. _With infinitives._--a) With the objective infinitive--_I can speak_: b)
+With the gerundial infinitive--_I have to speak_.
+
+3. _With both infinitives and participles._--_I shall have done_, _I mean
+to have done_.
+
+D. _Auxiliary verbs may be classified according to their
+effect._--Thus--_have_ makes the combination in which it appears equivalent
+to a tense; _be_ to a passive form; _may_ to a sign of mood, &c.
+
+This sketch of the different lights under which auxiliary verbs may be
+viewed, has been written for the sake of illustrating, rather than
+exhausting, the subject.
+
+s. 492. The combination of the auxiliary, _have_, with the past participle
+requires notice. It is, here, advisable to make the following
+classifications.
+
+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 equitatum_ (singular,
+neuter). Here the construction is--
+
+ "Triste ... maturis frugibus imbres,
+ Arboribus venti, nobis Amaryllidos irae."
+
+or in Greek--
+
+ [Greek: Deinon gunaixin hai di' odinon gonai].
+
+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_. Quae cum ita sint, satis de Caesare hoc
+_dictum habeo_.
+
+The combination of _have_ with an intransitive verb is irreducible to the
+idea of possession: indeed, it is illogical. In _I have waited_, we cannot
+make the idea expressed by the word _waited_ the object of the verb _have_
+or _possess_. The expression has become a part of language by means of the
+extension of a false analogy. It is an instance of an illegitimate
+imitation.
+
+The combination of _have_ with _been_ is more illogical still, and is a
+stronger instance of the influence of an illegitimate imitation. In German
+and Italian, where even _intransitive_ verbs are combined with the
+equivalents to the English _have_ (_haben_, and _avere_), the verb
+substantive is not so combined; on the contrary, the combinations are
+
+ Italian; _io sono stato_ = _I am been_.
+ German; _ich bin gewesen_ = _ditto_.
+
+which is logical.
+
+s. 493. _I am to speak_.--Three facts explain this idiom.
+
+1. The idea of _direction towards an object_ conveyed by the dative case,
+and by combinations equivalent to it.
+
+2. The extent to which the ideas of necessity, obligation, or intention are
+connected with the idea of _something that has to be done_, or _something
+towards which some action has a tendency_.
+
+3. The fact that expressions like the one in question historically
+represent an original dative case, or its equivalent; since _to speak_
+grows out of the Anglo-Saxon form _to sprecanne_, which, although called a
+gerund, is really a dative case of the infinitive mood.
+
+When Johnson thought that, in the phrase _he is to blame_, the word _blame_
+was a noun, if he meant a noun in the way that _culpa_ is a noun, his view
+was wrong. But if he meant a noun in the way that _culpare_, _ad
+culpandum_, are nouns, it was right.
+
+s. 494. _I am to blame_.--This idiom is one degree more complex than the
+previous one; since _I am to blame_ = _I am to be blamed_. As early,
+however, as the Anglo-Saxon period the gerunds were liable to be used in a
+passive sense: _he is to lufigenne_ = not _he is to love_, but _he is to be
+loved_.
+
+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_.
+
+s. 495. _I am beaten_.--This is a present combination, and it is present on
+the strength of the verb _am_, not on the strength of the participle
+_beaten_, which is praeterite.
+
+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.
+
+ _Language_ LATIN _datur_, LATIN _datus est_.
+
+ _Moeso-Gothic_ gibada, ist, vas, varth gibans.
+ _Old High German_ ist, wirdit kepan, was, warth kepan.
+ _Notker_ wirt keben, ist keben.
+ _Middle High German_ wirt geben, ist geben.
+ _New High German_ wird gegeben, ist gegeben worden.
+ _Old Saxon_ is, wirtheth gebhan, was, warth gebhan.
+ _Middle Dutch_ es blift ghegheven, waert, bl[^e]f ghegeven.
+ _New Dutch_ wordt gegeven, es gegeven worden.
+ _Old Frisian_ werth ejeven, is ejeven.
+ _Anglo-Saxon_ weorded gifen, is gifen.
+ _English_ is given, has been given.
+ _Old Norse_ er gefinn, hefr verit gefinn.
+ _Swedish_ gifves, har varit gifven.
+ _Danish_ bliver, vorder given, har varet given.
+ "Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 19."
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER XXIV.
+
+THE SYNTAX OF ADVERBS.
+
+s. 496. The syntax of the adverb is simpler than that of any other part of
+speech, excepting, perhaps, that of the adjective.
+
+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.
+
+s. 497. By referring to the Chapter on the Adverbs, we shall find that the
+neuter adjective is frequently converted into an adverb by deflection. As
+any neuter adjective may be so deflected, we may justify such expressions
+as _full_ (for _fully_) as _conspicuous_ (for _conspicuously_), and
+_peculiar_ (for _peculiarly_) _bad grace_, &c. We are not, however, bound
+to imitate everything that we can justify.
+
+s. 498. The termination -ly was originally adjectival. At present it is a
+derivational syllable by which we can convert an adjective into an adverb:
+_brave, brave-ly_. When, however, the adjective ends in -ly already, the
+formation is awkward. _I eat my daily bread_ is unexceptionable English; _I
+eat my bread daily_ is exceptionable. One of two things must here take
+place: the two syllables ly are packed into one (the full expression being
+_dai-li-ly_), or else the construction is that of a neuter adjective
+deflected.
+
+Adverbs are convertible. _The then men_ = [Greek: hoi nun brotoi], &c. This
+will be seen more clearly in the Chapter on Conjunctions.
+
+s. 499. It has been remarked that in expressions like _he sleeps the sleep
+of the righteous_, the construction is adverbial. So it is in expressions
+like _he walked a mile, it weighs a pound_. The ideas expressed by _mile_
+and _pound_ are not the names of anything that serves as either object or
+instrument to the verb. They only denote the _manner_ of the action, and
+define the meaning of the verb.
+
+s. 500. _From whence_, _from thence_.--This is an expression which, if it
+have not taken root in our language, is likely to do so. It is an instance
+of excess of expression in the way of syntax; the -ce denoting direction
+_from_ a place, and the preposition doing the same. It is not so important
+to determine what this construction _is_, as to suggest what it is _not_.
+It is _not_ an instance of an adverb governed by a preposition. If the two
+words be dealt with as logically separate, _whence_ (or _thence_) must be a
+noun = _which place_ (or _that place_); just as _from then till now_ =
+_from that time to this_. But if (which is the better view) the two words
+be dealt with as one (i.e., as an improper compound) the preposition _from_
+has lost its natural power, and become the element of an adverb.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER XXV.
+
+ON PREPOSITIONS.
+
+s. 501. All prepositions govern an oblique case. If a word ceases to do
+this, it ceases to be a preposition. In the first of the two following
+sentences the word _up_ is a preposition, in the second an adverb.
+
+ 1. _I climbed up the tree._
+ 2. _I climbed up._
+
+All prepositions in English, precede the noun which they govern. _I climbed
+up the tree_, never _I climbed the tree up_. This is a matter not of
+government, but of collocation. It is the case in most languages; and, from
+the frequency of its occurrence, the term _pre-position_ (or _pre-fix_) has
+originated. Nevertheless, it is by no means a philological necessity. In
+many languages the prepositions are_ post-positive_, following their noun.
+
+s. 502. No preposition, in the present English, governs a genitive case.
+This remark is made, because expressions like the _part of the body = pars
+corporis,--a piece of the bread = portio panis_, make it appear as if the
+preposition _of_ did so. The true expression is, that the preposition _of_
+followed by an objective case is equivalent in many instances, to the
+genitive case of the classical languages.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER XXVI.
+
+ON CONJUNCTIONS.
+
+s. 503. A conjunction is a part of speech which connects
+_propositions_,--_the day is bright_, is one proposition. _The sun shines_,
+is another. _The day is bright_ because _the sun shines_ is a pair of
+propositions connected by the conjunction, _because_.
+
+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.
+
+s. 504. The second point in the syntax of conjunctions is the fact of their
+great convertibility. Most conjunctions have been developed out of some
+other part of speech.
+
+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 reasons,--the word that follows it _must_ be the subject of the
+second proposition, and as such, a nominative case.
+
+s. 505. The third point to determine in the syntax of conjunctions is the
+certainty or uncertainty in the mind of the speaker as to the facts
+expressed by the propositions which they serve to connect.
+
+1. Each proposition may contain a certain, definite, absolute fact--_the
+day is clear_ because _the sun shines_. Here there is neither doubt nor
+contingency of either the _day being clear_, or of the _sun shining_.
+
+Of two propositions one may be the condition of the other--_the day will be
+clear_ if _the sun shine_. Here, although it is certain that _if the sun
+shine the day will be clear_, there is no certainty of _the sun shining_.
+Of the two propositions one only embodies a certain fact, and that is
+certain only conditionally.
+
+Now an action, wherein there enters any notion of uncertainty, or
+indefinitude, and is at the same time connected with another action, is
+expressed, not by the indicative mood, but by the subjunctive. _If the sun_
+shine (not _shines_) _the day will be clear._
+
+Simple uncertainty will not constitute a subjunctive construction,--_I am_,
+perhaps, _in the wrong_.
+
+Neither will simple connection.--_I am wrong_, because _you are right_.
+
+But, the two combined constitute the construction in question,--_if I _be_
+wrong, you are right_.
+
+Now, a conjunction that connects two certain propositions may be said to
+govern an indicative mood.
+
+And a conjunction that connects an uncertain proposition with a certain
+one, may be said to govern a subjunctive mood.
+
+_The government of mood is the only form of government of which
+conjunctions are capable._
+
+s. 506. Previous to the question of the government of conjunctions in the
+way of mood, it is necessary to notice certain points of agreement between
+them and the relative pronouns; inasmuch as, in many cases, the relative
+pronoun exerts the same government, in the way of determining the mood of
+the verb, as the conjunction.
+
+Between the relative pronouns and conjunctions in general there is this
+point of connection,--both join propositions. Wherever there is a relative,
+there is a second proposition. So there is wherever there is a conjunction.
+
+Between certain relative pronouns and those particular conjunctions that
+govern a subjunctive mood there is also a point of connection. Both suggest
+an element of uncertainty or indefinitude. This the relative pronouns do,
+through the logical elements common to them and to the interrogatives:
+these latter essentially suggesting the idea of doubt. Wherever the person,
+or thing, connected with an action, and expressed by a relative is
+indefinite, there is room for the use of a subjunctive mood. Thus--"he that
+troubled you shall bear his judgment, _whosoever_ he _be_."
+
+s. 507. By considering the nature of such words as _when_, their origin as
+relatives on the one hand, and their conjunctional character on the other
+hand, we are prepared for finding a relative element in words like _till_,
+_until_, _before_, _as long as_, &c. These can all be expanded into
+expressions like _until the time when_, _during the time when_, &c. Hence,
+in an expression like _seek out his wickedness till thou_ find (not
+_findest_) _none_, the principle of the construction is nearly the same as
+in _he that troubled you_, &c., or _vice vers[^a]_.[64]
+
+s. 508. In most conditional expressions the subjunctive mood should follow
+the conjunction. All the following expressions are conditional.
+
+ 1. _Except_ I _be_ by Silvia in the night,
+ There is no music in the nightingale.--SHAKSPEARE.
+
+ 2. Let us go and sacrifice to the Lord our God, _lest_ he _fall_ upon
+ us with pestilence.--_Old Testament._
+
+ 3. ----Revenge back on itself recoils.
+ Let it. I reck not, _so_ it _light_ well aimed.--J. MILTON.
+
+ 4. _If_ this _be_ the case.
+
+ 5. _Although_ my house _be_ not so with God.--_Old Testament._
+
+ 6. He shall not eat of the holy thing _unless_ he _wash_ his flesh with
+ water.--_Old Testament._
+
+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[^a] facie_ reason against the
+existence of the other: and this is the conditional element. In the
+sentence, _if the children be so badly brought-up, they are not to be
+trusted_, the _bad bringing-up_ is the reason for their being _unfit to be
+trusted_; and, as far as the expression is concerned, _is admitted to be
+so_. The only uncertainty lies in the question as to the degree of the
+badness of the education. The inference from it is unequivocal.
+
+But if, instead of saying _if_, we say _although_, and omit the word _not_,
+so that the sentence run _although the children be so badly brought-up they
+are to be trusted_, we do two things: we indicate the general relation of
+cause and effect that exists between _bad bringing-up_ and _unfitness for
+being trusted_, but we also, at the same time, take an exception to it in
+the particular instance before us. These remarks have been made for the
+sake of showing the extent to which words like _though_, &c., are
+conditional.
+
+It must be remembered, however, that conjunctions, like the ones lately
+quoted, do not govern subjunctive moods because they are conditional, but
+because, in the particular condition which they accompany, there is an
+element of uncertainty.
+
+s. 509. This introduces a fresh question. Conditional conjunctions are of
+two sorts:--
+
+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.
+
+s. 510. Now, if every conjunction had a fixed unvariable meaning, there
+would be no difficulty in determining whether a condition was absolute, and
+beyond doubt, or possible, and liable to doubt. But such is not the case.
+
+_Although_ may precede a proposition which is admitted as well as one which
+is doubted.
+
+ a. Although _the children_ are, &c.
+ b. Although _the children_ be, &c.
+
+_If_, too, may precede propositions wherein there is no doubt whatever
+implied: in other words it may be used instead of _since_.
+
+In some languages this interchange goes farther than in others; in the
+Greek, for instance, such is the case with [Greek: ei], to a very great
+extent indeed.
+
+Hence we must look to the meaning of the sentence in general, rather than
+to the particular conjunction used.
+
+It is a philological fact that _if_ may stand instead of _since_.
+
+It is also a philological fact that when it does so it should be followed
+by the indicative mood.
+
+This is written in the way of illustration. What applies to _if_ applies to
+other conjunctions as well.
+
+s. 511. As a point of practice, the following method of determining the
+amount of doubt expressed in a conditional proposition is useful:--
+
+Insert, immediately after the conjunction, one of the two following
+phrases,--(1.) _as is the case_; (2.) _as may or may not be the case_. By
+ascertaining which of these two supplements expresses the meaning of the
+speaker, we ascertain the mood of the verb which follows.
+
+When the first formula is the one required, there is no element of doubt,
+and the verb should be in the indicative mood. _If_ (_as is the case_), _he
+_is_ gone, I must follow him_.
+
+When the second formula is the one required, there _is_ an element of
+doubt, and the verb should be in the subjunctive mood. _If_ (_as may or may
+not be the case_) _he _be_ gone, I must follow him_.
+
+s. 512. The use of the word _that_ in expressions like _I eat that I may
+live_, &c., is a modification of the subjunctive construction, that is
+conveniently called _potential_. It denotes that one act is done for the
+sake of supplying the _power_ or opportunity for the performance of
+another.
+
+The most important point connected with the powers of _that_ is the
+so-called _succession of tenses_.
+
+s. 513. _The succession of tenses._--Whenever the conjunction _that_
+expresses intention, and consequently connects two verbs, the second of
+which takes place _after_ the first, the verbs in question must be in the
+same tense.
+
+ I _do_ this _that_ I _may_ gain by it
+ I _did_ this _that_ I _might_ gain by it.
+
+In the Greek language this is expressed by a difference of mood; the
+subjunctive being the construction equivalent to _may_, the optative to
+_might_. The Latin idiom coincides with the English.
+
+A little consideration will show that this rule is absolute. For a man _to
+be doing_ one action (in present time) in order that some other action may
+_follow_ it (in past time) is to reverse the order of cause and effect. To
+do anything in A.D. 1851, that something may result from it in 1850 is a
+contradiction; and so it is to say _I _do_ this_ that _I _might_ gain by
+it_.
+
+The reasons against the converse construction are nearly, if not equally
+cogent. To have done anything at any _previous_ time in order that a
+_present_ effect may follow, is, _ipso facto_, to convert a past act into a
+present one, or, to speak in the language of the grammarian, to convert 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_.
+
+ _I _did_ this_ that _I _might_ gain_.
+ _I _have done_ this_ that _I _may_ gain_.
+
+s. 514. _Disjunctives._--Disjunctives (_or_, _nor_) are of two sorts, real
+and nominal.
+
+_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 _sub_disjunctives.
+
+In the English language there is no separate word to distinguish the
+nominal from the real disjunctive. In Latin, _vel_ is considered by Harris
+to be disjunctive, _sive_ subdisjunctive. As a periphrasis, the combination
+_in other words_ is subdisjunctive.
+
+Both nominal and real disjunctives agree in this,--whatever may be the
+number of nouns which they connect, the construction of the verb is the
+same as if there were but one--Henry, _or_ John, _or_ Thomas, _walks_ (not
+_walk_); the sun, _or_ solar luminary, _shines_ (not _shine_). The
+disjunctive _isolates_ the subject, however much it may be placed in
+juxtaposition with other nouns.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER XXVII.
+
+THE SYNTAX OF THE NEGATIVE.
+
+s. 515. When the verb is in the infinitive mood, the negative precedes
+it.--_Not to advance is to retreat_.
+
+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 praefigi
+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.
+
+s. 516. What may be called the _distribution_ of the negative is pretty
+regular in English. Thus, when the word _not_ comes between an indicative,
+imperative, or subjunctive mood and an infinitive verb, it almost always is
+taken with the word which it _follows_--_I can not eat_ may mean either _I
+can--not eat_ (i.e., _I can abstain_), or _I can not--eat_ (i.e., _I am
+unable to eat_); but, as stated above, it _almost_ always has the latter
+signification.
+
+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_.
+
+s. 517. In the present English, two negatives make an affirmative. _I have
+not not seen him_ = _I have seen him_. In Greek this was not the case.
+_Duae aut plures negativae apud Graecos vehementius negant_ is a well known
+rule. The Anglo-Saxon idiom differed from the English and coincided with
+the Greek. The French negative is only apparently double; words like
+_point_, _pas_, mean not _not_, but _at all_. _Je ne parle pas_ = _I not
+speak at all_, not _I not speak no_.
+
+s. 518. _Questions of appeal._--All questions imply want of information;
+want of information may then imply doubt; doubt, perplexity; and perplexity
+the absence of an alternative. In this way, what are called, by Mr.
+Arnold,[65] _questions of appeal_, are, practically speaking, negatives.
+_What should I do?_ when asked in extreme perplexity, means that nothing
+can well be done. In the following passage we have the presence of a
+question instead of a negative:--
+
+ Or hear'st thou (_cluis_, Lat.) rather pure ethereal stream,
+ Whose fountain who (_no one_) shall tell?--_Paradise Lost._
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+CHAPTER XXVIII.
+
+ON THE CASE ABSOLUTE.
+
+s. 519. Broadly speaking, all adverbial constructions are absolute. The
+term, however, is conveniently limited to a particular combination of the
+noun, verb, and participle. When two actions are connected with each other,
+either by the fact of their simultaneous occurrence, or as cause and
+effect, they may be expressed within the limits of a single proposition, by
+expressing the one by means of a verb, and the other by means of a noun and
+participle agreeing with each other. _The door being open, the horse was
+stolen._
+
+Considering the nature of the connection between the two actions, we find
+good grounds for expecting _[`a] 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.
+
+PROSODY.
+
+s. 520. The word _Prosody_ is derived from a Greek word (_prosodia_)
+signifying _accent_. It is used by Latin and English grammarians in a wider
+sense, and includes not only the doctrines of accent and quantity, but also
+the laws of metre and versification.
+
+s. 521. Observe the accents in the following lines:--
+
+ Then f['a]re thee w['e]ll, mine ['o]wn dear l['o]ve,
+ The w['o]rld hath n['o]w for ['u]s
+ No gre['a]ter gri['e]f, no pa['i]n ab['o]ve
+ The pa['i]n of p['a]rting th['u]s.--MOORE.
+
+Here the syllables accented are the 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 10th, 12th, 14th,
+16th, 18th, 20th, 22nd, 24th, 26th, 28th; that is, every other
+syllable.--Again,
+
+ At the cl['o]se of the d['a]y, when the h['a]mlet is st['i]ll,
+ And the m['o]rtals the swe['e]ts of forg['e]tfulness pr['o]ve,
+ And when n['o]ught but the t['o]rrent is he['a]rd on the h['i]ll,
+ And there's n['o]ught but the n['i]ghtingale's s['o]ng in the
+ gr['o]ve.--BEATTIE.
+
+Here the syllables accented are the 3rd, 6th, 9th, 12th, 15th, 18th, 21st,
+24th, 27th, 30th, 33rd, 36th, 39th, 42nd, 45th, 48th; that is, every third
+syllable.
+
+s. 522. _Metre is a general term for the recurrence within certain
+intervals of syllables similarly affected._ The syllables that have just
+been numbered are similarly affected, being similarly accented. Accent is
+not the only quality of a syllable, which by returning at regular intervals
+can constitute metre. It is the one, however, upon which English metre
+depends. English metre essentially consists in the regular recurrence of
+syllables similarly _accented_.
+
+ _Abbot._--And wh['y] not l['i]ve and ['a]ct with ['o]ther m['e]n?
+
+ _Manfred._--Beca['u]se my n['a]ture w['a]s av['e]rse from l['i]fe;
+ And y['e]t not cr['u]el, f['o]r I wo['u]ld not m['a]ke,
+ But f['i]nd a d['e]sol['a]tion:--l['i]ke the w['i]nd,
+ The r['e]d-hot bre['a]th of th['e] most l['o]ne simo['o]m,
+ Which dw['e]lls but ['i]n the d['e]sert, ['a]nd sweeps o'['e]r
+ The b['a]rren s['a]nds which be['a]r no shr['u]bs to bl['a]st,
+ And r['e]vels ['o]'er their w['i]ld and ['a]rid w['a]ves,
+ And se['e]keth n['o]t so th['a]t it ['i]s not so['u]ght,
+ But b['e]ing m['e]t is de['a]dly: s['u]ch hath be['e]n
+ The p['a]th of m['y] ex['i]stence.--BYRON.
+
+s. 523. _Measures._--For every accented syllable in the following line,
+write the letter a, and for every unaccented one, the letter x, so that a
+may stand for an accent, x for the absence of one--
+
+ The w['a]y was l['o]ng, the w['i]nd was c['o]ld.--SCOTT.
+
+or expressed symbolically
+
+ x a x a x a x a,
+
+where x coincides with _the_, a with _way_, &c.
+
+s. 524. Determine the length of the line in question.--It is plain that
+this may be done in two ways. We may either measure by the syllables, and
+say that the line consists of eight syllables; or by the accents, and say
+that it consists of four accents. In this latter case we take the accented
+syllable with its corresponding unaccented one, and, grouping the two
+together, deal with the pair at once. Now, a group of syllables thus taken
+together is called a _measure_. In the line in question _the way_ (x a) is
+one measure, _was long_ (x a) another, and so on throughout; the line
+itself consisting of four measures.
+
+s. 525. _Trisyllabic measures._--The number of measures consisting of two
+syllables, or dissyllabic measures, is necessarily limited to two,
+expressed a x and x a respectively. But beyond these there are in the
+English language measures of three syllables, or trisyllabic measures. The
+number of these is necessarily limited to three.
+
+The first of these is exhibited in the word _m['e]rrily_ (a x x).
+
+ M['e]rrily, m['e]rrily sh['a]ll I live n['o]w,
+ ['U]nder the bl['o]ssom that h['a]ngs on the bo['u]gh.--SHAKSPEARE.
+
+The second is exhibited by the word _dis['a]ble_ (x a x).
+
+ But va['i]nly thou w['a]rrest,
+ For th['i]s is al['o]ne in
+ Thy p['o]wer to decl['a]re,
+ That ['i]n the dim f['o]rest
+ Thou he['a]rd'st a low mo['a]ning,
+ And s['a]w'st a bright l['a]dy surp['a]ssingly fa['i]r.--COLERIDGE.
+
+s. 526. The third is exhibited by the word _cavali['e]r_ (x x a).
+
+ There's a bea['u]ty for ['e]ver unf['a]dingly br['i]ght,
+ Like the l['o]ng ruddy l['a]pse of a s['u]mmer-day's n['i]ght.--MOORE.
+
+When grouped together according to certain rules, measures form lines and
+verses; and lines and verses, regularly arranged, constitute couplets,
+triplets, and stanzas, &c.
+
+s. 527. The expression of measures, lines, &c., by such symbols as a x, x
+a, &c., is _metrical notation_.
+
+s. 528. _Rhyme._--We can have English verse without _rhyme_. We cannot have
+English verse without _accent_. Hence accent is an _essential_; rhyme an
+_accessory_ to metre.
+
+s. 529. _Analysis of a pair of rhyming syllables._--Let the syllables
+_told_ and _bold_ be taken to pieces, and let the separate parts of each be
+compared. Viewed in reference to metre, they consist of three parts or
+elements: 1. the vowel (o); 2. the part _preceding_ the vowel (t and b
+respectively); 3. the parts _following_ the vowel (ld). Now the vowel (o)
+and the parts following the vowel (ld) are alike in both words (_old_); but
+the part preceding the vowel is different in the different words (_told_,
+_bold_). This difference between the parts preceding the vowels is
+essential; since, if it were not for this, the two words would be
+identical, or rather there would be but one word altogether. This is the
+case with _I_ and _eye_. Sound for sound (although different in spelling)
+the two words are identical, and, consequently, the rhyme is faulty.
+
+Again--compared with the words _bold_ and _told_, the words _teeth_ and
+_breeze_ have two of the elements necessary to constitute a rhyme. The
+vowels are alike (ee), whilst the parts preceding the vowels are different
+(br and t); and, as far as these two matters are concerned, the rhyme is a
+good one, _tee_ and _bree_. Notwithstanding this, there is anything rather
+than a rhyme; since the parts following the vowel (th and ze) instead of
+agreeing, differ. _Breathe_ and _beneath_ are in the same predicament,
+because the th is not sounded alike in the two words.
+
+Again--the words _feel_ and _mill_ constitute only a false and imperfect
+rhyme. Sound for sound, the letters f and m (the parts preceding the vowel)
+are different. This is as it should be. Also, sound for sound, l and ll
+(the parts following the vowel) are identical; and this is as it should be
+also: but ee and i (the vowels) are different, and this difference spoils
+the rhyme. _None_ and _own_ are in the same predicament; since one o is
+sounded as o in _note_, and the other as the u in _but_.
+
+From what has gone before we get the notion of true and perfect rhymes as
+opposed to false and imperfect ones. For two (or more) words to rhyme to
+each other, it is necessary
+
+ a. That the vowel be the same in both.
+ b. That the parts following the vowel be the same.
+ c. That the parts preceding the vowel be different.
+
+Beyond this it is necessary that the syllables, to form a full and perfect
+rhyme, should be accented syllables. _Sky_ and _lie_ form good rhymes, but
+_sky_ and merri_ly_ bad ones, and _merrily_ and _silly_ worse. Lines like
+the second and fourth of the following stanza are slightly exceptionable on
+this score: indeed, many readers sacrifice the accent in the word
+_m['e]rrily_ to the rhyme, and pronounce it _merril['y]_.
+
+ The w['i]tch she h['e]ld the ha['i]r in her h['a]nd,
+ The r['e]d flame bl['a]zed h['i]gh;
+ And ro['u]nd abo['u]t the c['a]ldron sto['u]t,
+ They d['a]nced right m['e]rri_l['y]_.--KIRKE WHITE.
+
+s. 530. In matters of rhyme the letter h counts as nothing. _High_ and _I_,
+_hair_ and _air_, are imperfect rhymes, because h (being no articulate
+sound) counts as nothing, and so the parts before the vowel i and a are not
+different (as they ought to be) but identical.
+
+ Whose generous children narrow'd not their hearts
+ With commerce, giv'n alone to arms and arts.--BYRON.
+
+s. 531. Words where the letters coincide, but the sounds differ, are only
+rhymes to the eye. _Breathe_ and _beneath_ are both in this predicament; so
+also are _cease_ and _ease_ (_eaze_).
+
+ In the fat age of pleasure, wealth, and ease,
+ Sprang the rank weed, and thrived with large increase.--POPE.
+
+s. 532. If the sounds coincide, the difference of the letters is
+unimportant.
+
+ Bold in the practice of mistaken rules,
+ Prescribe, apply, and call their masters fools.
+ They talk of principles, but notions prize,
+ And all to one loved folly sacrifice.--POPE.
+
+s. 533. _Single rhymes._--An accented syllable standing by itself, and
+coming under the conditions given above, constitutes a single rhyme.
+
+ 'Tis hard to say if greater want of _skill_
+ Appear in writing or in judging _ill_;
+ But of the two, less dangerous is the of_fence_
+ To tire the patience than mislead the _sense_.
+ Some few in that, but thousands err in _this_;
+ Ten censure wrong, for one that writes a_miss_.--POPE.
+
+s. 534. _Double rhymes._--An accented syllable followed by an unaccented
+one, and coming under the conditions given above, constitutes a double
+rhyme.
+
+ The meeting points the sacred hair dis_sever_
+ From her fair head for ever and for _ever_.--POPE.
+
+ Prove and explain a thing till all men _doubt it_,
+ And write about it, Goddess, and _about it_.--POPE.
+
+s. 535. An accented syllable followed by two unaccented ones, and coming
+under the conditions given above, constitutes a treble rhyme.
+
+ Beware that its fatal a_sc['e]ndancy_
+ Do not tempt thee to mope and repine;
+ With a humble and hopeful de_p['e]ndency_
+ Still await the good pleasure divine.
+ Success in a higher be_['a]titude_,
+ Is the end of what's under the Pole;
+ A philosopher takes it with _gr['a]titude_,
+ And believes it the best on the whole.--BYRON.
+
+s. 536. Metres where there is no rhyme are called blank metres.
+
+ Of man's first disobedience and the fruit
+ Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste
+ Brought death into the world and all our woe,
+ With loss of Eden, till one greater Man
+ Restore us, and regain the blissful seat,
+ Sing, Heavenly Muse!--MILTON.
+
+ The quality of mercy is not strained.
+ It droppeth as the gentle dew from heaven
+ Upon the place beneath; it is twice bless'd,
+ It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes
+ 'Tis mightiest of the mighty, it becomes
+ The throned monarch better than his crown.
+ His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
+ The attribute of awe and majesty,
+ Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings:
+ But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
+ It is enthroned in the hearts of kings:
+ It is an attribute to God himself;
+ And earthly power doth then show likest God's,
+ When mercy seasons justice.--SHAKSPEARE.
+
+s. 537. _The last measure in a line or verse is indifferent as to its
+length._--By referring to the section upon single rhymes, we shall find
+that the number of syllables is just double the number of accents; that is,
+to each accented there is one unaccented syllable, and no more. Hence, with
+five accents, there are to each line ten syllables. This is not the case
+with all verses. Some rhymes are double, and the last accented syllable has
+two unaccented ones to follow it. Hence, with five accents there are to
+each line eleven syllables. Now it is in the last measure that this
+supernumerary unaccented syllable appears; and it is a general rule, that,
+in the last measure of any verse, supernumerary unaccented syllables can be
+admitted without destroying the original character of the measure.
+
+s. 538. See the verses in the section on double rhymes. Here the original
+character of the measure is x a throughout, until we get to the words
+_diss['e]ver_ and _for ['e]ver_, and afterwards to _men do['u]bt it_, and
+_abo['u]t it_. At the first view it seems proper to say that in these
+last-mentioned cases x a is converted into x a x. A different view,
+however, is the more correct one. _Diss['e]ver_ and _for ['e]ver_, are
+rather x a with a syllable over. This extra syllable may be expressed by
+the sign _plus_ ( + ), so that the words in point may be expressed by x a
++, rather than by x a x. It is very clear that a measure whereof the last
+syllable is accented (that is, measures like x a, _pres['u]me_, or x x a,
+_caval['i]er_), can only vary from their original character on the side of
+excess; that is, they can only be altered by the addition of fresh
+syllables. To subtract a syllable from such feet is impossible; since it is
+only the last syllable that is capable of being subtracted. If that last
+syllable, however, be the accented syllable of the measure, the whole
+measure is annihilated. Nothing remains but the unaccented syllable
+preceding; and this, as no measure can subsist without an accent, must be
+counted as a supernumerary part of the preceding measure.
+
+s. 539. With the measures a x, a x x, x a x, the case is different. Here
+there is room for syllable or syllables to be subtracted.
+
+ Que['e]n and h['u]ntress, ch['a]ste and fa['i]r,
+ N['o]w the s['u]n is la['i]d to sl['e]ep,
+ Seated ['i]n thy s['i]lver cha['i]r,
+ St['a]te in w['o]nted spl['e]ndour ke['e]p.
+ H['e]sper['u]s inv['o]kes thy l['i]ght,
+ G['o]ddess, ['e]xquis['i]tely br['i]ght.--BEN JONSON.
+
+In all these lines the last measure is deficient in a syllable, yet the
+deficiency is allowable, because each measure is the last one of the line.
+The formula for expressing _fa['i]r_, _sl['e]ep_, _cha['i]r_, &c. is not a,
+but rather a x followed by the _minus_ sign (-), or a x-.
+
+A little consideration will show that amongst the English measures, x a and
+x x a naturally form single, a x and x a x double, and a x x treble rhymes.
+
+s. 540. The chief metres in English are of the formula x a. It is only a
+few that are known by fixed names. These are as follows:--
+
+1. _Gay's stanza._--Lines of three measures, x a, with alternate rhymes.
+The odd (i.e. the 1st and 3rd) rhymes double.
+
+ 'Twas when the seas were roaring
+ With hollow blasts of wind,
+ A damsel lay deploring,
+ All on a rock reclined.
+
+2. _Common octosyllabics._--Four measures, x a, with rhyme, and (unless the
+rhymes be double) eight syllables (_octo syllabae_).--Butler's Hudibras,
+Scott's poems, The Giaour, and other poems of Lord Byron.
+
+3. _Elegiac octosyllabics_.--Same as the last, except that the rhymes are
+regularly alternate, and the verses arranged in stanzas.
+
+ And on her lover's arm she leant,
+ And round her waist she felt it fold,
+ And far across the hills they went,
+ In that new world which now is old:
+ Across the hills and far away,
+ Beyond their utmost purple rim,
+ And deep into the dying day
+ The happy princess follow'd him.--TENNYSON.
+
+4. _Octosyllabic triplets._--Three rhymes in succession. Generally arranged
+as stanzas.
+
+ I blest them, and they wander'd on;
+ I spoke, but answer came there none;
+ The dull and bitter voice was gone.--TENNYSON.
+
+5. _Blank verse._--Five measures, x a, without rhyme, Paradise Lost,
+Young's Night Thoughts, Cowper's Task.
+
+6. _Heroic couplets._--Five measures, x a, with pairs of rhymes. Chaucer,
+Denham, Dryden, Waller, Pope, Goldsmith, Cowper, Byron, Moore, Shelley, &c.
+This is the common metre for narrative, didactic, and descriptive poetry.
+
+7. _Heroic triplets._--Five measures, x a. Three rhymes in succession.
+Arranged in stanzas. This metre is sometimes interposed among heroic
+couplets.
+
+8. _Elegiacs._--Five measures, x a; with regularly alternate rhymes, and
+arranged in stanzas.
+
+ The curfew tolls the knell of parting day,
+ The lowing herds wind slowly o'er the lea,
+ The ploughman homewards plods his weary way,
+ And leaves the world to darkness and to me.--GRAY.
+
+9. _Rhymes royal._--Seven lines of heroics, with the last two rhymes in
+succession, and the first five recurring at intervals.
+
+ This Troilus, in gift of curtesie,
+ With hauk on hond, and with a huge rout
+ Of knightes, rode, and did her company,
+ Passing all through the valley far about;
+ And further would have ridden out of doubt.
+ Full faine and woe was him to gone so sone;
+ But turn he must, and it was eke to doen.--CHAUCER.
+
+This metre was common with the writers of the earlier part of Queen
+Elizabeth's reign. It admits of varieties according to the distribution of
+the first five rhymes.
+
+10. _Ottava rima._--A metre with an Italian name, and borrowed from Italy,
+where it is used generally for narrative poetry. The Morgante Maggiore of
+Pulci, the Orlando Innamorato of Bojardo, the Orlando Furioso of Ariosto,
+the Gierusalemme Liberata of Tasso, are all written in this metre. Besides
+this, the two chief epics of Spain and Portugal respectively (the Auraucana
+and the Lusiados) are thus composed. Hence it is a form of poetry which is
+Continental rather than English, and naturalized rather than indigenous.
+The stanza consists of eight lines of heroics, the six first rhyming
+alternately, the last two in succession.
+
+ Arrived there, a prodigious noise he hears,
+ Which suddenly along the forest spread;
+ Whereat from out his quiver he prepares
+ An arrow for his bow, and lifts his head;
+ And, lo! a monstrous herd of swine appears,
+ And onward rushes with tempestuous tread,
+ And to the fountain's brink precisely pours,
+ So that the giant's join'd by all the boars.
+ _Morgante Maggiore_ (LD. BYRON'S _Translation_.)
+
+11. _Terza rima._--Like the last, borrowed both in name and nature from the
+Italian, and scarcely yet naturalized in England.
+
+ The Spirit of the fervent days of old,
+ When words were things that came to pass, and Thought
+ Flash'd o'er the future, bidding men behold
+ Their children's children's doom already brought
+ Forth from the abyss of Time which is to be,
+ The chaos of events where lie half-wrought
+ Shapes that must undergo mortality:
+ What the great seers of Israel wore within,
+ That Spirit was on them and is on me:
+ And if, Cassandra-like, amidst the din
+ Of conflicts, none will hear, or hearing heed
+ This voice from out the wilderness, the sin
+ Be theirs, and my own feelings be my meed,
+ The only guerdon I have ever known.
+
+12. _Alexandrines._--Six measures, x a, generally (perhaps always) with
+rhyme. The name is said to be taken from the fact that early romances upon
+the deeds of Alexander of Macedon, of great popularity, were written in
+this metre. One of the longest poems in the English language is in the
+Alexandrines, viz. Drayton's Poly-olbion, quoted above.
+
+13. _Spenserian stanza._--A stanza consisting of nine lines, the first
+eight heroics, the last an Alexandrine.
+
+ It hath been through all ages ever seen,
+ That with the prize of arms and chivalrie
+ The prize of beauty still hath joined been,
+ And that for reason's special privitie;
+ For either doth on other much rely.
+ For he meseems most fit the fair to serve
+ That can her best defend from villanie;
+ And she most fit his service doth deserve,
+ That fairest is, and from her faith will never swerve.--SPENSER.
+
+Childe Harold and other important poems are composed in the Spenserian
+stanza.
+
+14. _Service metre._--Couplets of seven measures, x a. This is the common
+metre of the Psalm versions. It is also called common measure, or long
+measure. In this metre there is always a pause after the fourth measure,
+and many grammarians consider that with that pause the line ends. According
+to this view, the service metre does not consist of two long lines with
+seven measures each; but of four short ones, with four and three measures
+each alternately. The Psalm versions are printed so as to exhibit this
+pause or break.
+
+ The Lord descended from above, | and bow'd the heavens most high,
+ And underneath his feet He cast | the darkness of the sky.
+ On Cherubs and on Seraphim | full royally He rode,
+ And on the wings of mighty winds | came flying all abroad.
+ STERNHOLD AND HOPKINS.
+
+In this matter the following distinction is convenient. When the last
+syllable of the fourth measure (i.e. the eighth syllable in the line) in
+the one verse _rhymes_ with the corresponding syllable in the other, the
+long verse should be looked upon as broken up into two short ones; in other
+words, the couplets should be dealt with as a stanza. Where there is no
+rhyme except at the seventh measure, the verse should remain undivided.
+Thus:
+
+ Turn, gentle hermit of the glen, | and guide thy lonely way
+ To where yon taper cheers the vale | with hospitable ray--
+
+constitute a single couplet of two lines, the number of rhymes being two.
+But,
+
+ Turn, gentle hermit of the dale,
+ And guide thy lonely way
+ To where yon taper cheers the vale
+ With hospitable ray--(GOLDSMITH)
+
+constitute a stanza of four lines, the number of rhymes being four.
+
+15. _Ballad stanza._--Service metre broken up in the way just indicated.
+Goldsmith's Edwin and Angelina, &c.
+
+16. _Poulterer's measure._--Alexandrines and service metre alternately.
+Found in the poetry of Henry the Eighth's time.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+PART VII.
+
+THE DIALECTS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
+
+s. 541. Certain parts of England are named as if their population were
+preeminently _Saxon_ rather than _Angle_; viz., Wes-sex ( = West _Saxons_),
+Es-sex ( = East _Saxons_), Sus-sex ( = South _Saxons_), and Middle-sex, ( =
+Middle _Saxons_).
+
+Others are named as if their population were preeminently _Angle_ rather
+than _Saxon_; thus, the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk once constituted
+the kingdom of the East Angles, and even at the present moment, are often
+spoken of as _East Anglia_.
+
+s. 542. It is safe to say that the dialects of the English language do
+_not_ coincide with the distribution of these terms. That parts of the
+Angle differ from parts of the Saxon districts in respect to the character
+of their provincialisms is true; but it is by no means evident that they
+differ on that account.
+
+Thus, that the dialect of Hampshire, which was part of Wes-sex, should
+differ from that of Norfolk, which was part of East _Anglia_, is but
+natural. There is a great space of country between them--a fact sufficient
+to account for their respective characteristics, without assuming an
+original difference of population. Between the _Saxons_ of Es-sex and the
+_Anglians_ of Suffolk, no one has professed to find any notable difference.
+
+Hence, no division of the English dialects into those of _Saxon_ or those
+of _Angle_ origin, has been successful.
+
+Neither have any peculiarities in the dialect of Kent, or the Isle of
+Wight, verified the notion of the population for those parts having been
+originally _Jute_.
+
+Nor yet has any portion of England been shown by the evidence of its
+dialects, to have been _Frisian_.
+
+s. 543. Yet the solution of such problems is one of the great objects of
+the study of provincial modes of speech.
+
+s. 544. That _Jute_ characteristics will be sought in vain is the inference
+from ss. 7-13.
+
+That differential points between the _Angles_ and _Saxons_ will be sought
+in vain is also probable.
+
+On the other hand, differential points between the _Frisians_ and _Angles_
+are likely to be discovered.
+
+s. 545. The traces of the Danes, or Northmen, are distinct; the following
+forms of local names being _prim[^a] facie_ evidence (at least) of Danish
+or Norse occupancy.
+
+a. The combination Sk-, rather than the sound of Sh-, in such names as
+Skip-ton, rather than Ship-ton.
+
+b. The combination Ca-, rather than Ch-, in such names as Carl-ton rather
+than Charl-ton.
+
+c. The termination -by ( = _town_, _habitation_, _occupancy_,) rather than
+-ton, as Ash-by, Demble-by, Spills-by, Grims-by, &c.
+
+d. The form _Kirk_ rather than _Church_.
+
+e. The form _Orm_ rather than _Worm_, as in _Orms-head_.
+
+In _Orms-kirk_ and _Kir-by_ we have a combination of Danish
+characteristics.
+
+s. 546. In respect to their distribution, the Danish forms are--
+
+At their _maximum_ on the sea-coast of Lincolnshire; i.e., in the parts
+about Spills-by.
+
+Common, but less frequent, in Yorkshire, the Northern counties of England,
+the South-eastern parts of Scotland, Lancashire, (_Ormskirk_, _Horn-by_),
+and parts of South Wales (_Orms-head_, _Ten-by_).
+
+In Orkney, and the northern parts of Scotland, the Norse had originally the
+same influence that the Anglo-Saxon had in the south.--See the chapter of
+the Lowland Scotch.
+
+This explains the peculiar distribution of the Norse forms. Rare, or
+non-existent, in central and southern England, they appear on the opposite
+sides of the island, and on its northern extremity; showing that the stream
+of the Norse population went _round the island rather than across it_.
+
+s. 547. Next to the search after traces of the original differences in the
+speech of the Continental invaders of Great Britain, the question as to the
+origin of the _written_ language of England is the most important.
+
+Mr. Guest has given good reasons for believing it to have arisen out of a
+Mercian, rather than a West-Saxon dialect--although of the _Anglo-Saxon_
+the West-Saxon was the most cultivated form.
+
+This is confirmed by the present state of the Mercian dialects.
+
+The country about Huntingdon and Stamford is, in the mind of the present
+writer, that part of England where provincial peculiarities are at the
+_minimum_. This may be explained in various ways, of which none is
+preferable to the doctrine, that the dialect for those parts represents the
+dialect out of which the literary language of England became developed.
+
+Such are the chief problems connected with the study of the provincial
+dialects of England; the exhibition of the methods applicable to their
+investigation not being considered necessary in a work like the present.
+
+NOTE.
+
+ That _Saxon_ was the _British_ name of the Germanic invaders of Great
+ Britain is certain.--See s. 45.
+
+ The reasons which induce me to consider it as _exclusively_ British,
+ i.e., as foreign to the Angles, are as follows,--
+
+ a. No clear distinction has ever been drawn between, e.g., an _Angle_
+ of Suffolk, and a _Saxon_ of Essex.
+
+ b. The Romans who knew, for some parts at least, every inch of the land
+ occupied by the Saxons of Germany, as long as there is reason for
+ believing that they took their names from German sources, never use the
+ word. It is strange to Caesar, Strabo, Pliny, and Tacitus. Ptolemy is
+ the first who uses it.
+
+ c. Ecbert, who is said to have attached the name of _Engl_and, or Land
+ of _Angles_, to South Britain, was, himself, no _Angle_, but a
+ West-Saxon.[66]
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+QUESTIONS ON PARTS IV. V. VI. and VII.
+
+ PART IV.
+
+ 1. What is Johnson's explanation of the word _Etymology_? Into what
+ varieties does the study fall? What is the difference between
+ _Etymology_ and _Syntax_?
+
+ 2. How far are the following words instances of gender--_boy_,
+ _he-goat_, _actress_, _which_? Analyze the forms _what_, _her_, _its_,
+ _vixen_, _spinster_, _gander_, _drake_.
+
+ 3. How far is there a dual number in the Gothic tongues? What is the
+ rule for forming such a plural as _stags_ from _stag_? What are the
+ peculiarities in _monarchs_, _cargoes_, _keys_, _pence_, _geese_,
+ _children_, _women_, _houses_, _paths_, _leaves_? Of what number are
+ the words _alms_, _physics_, _news_, _riches_?
+
+ 4. To what extent have we in English a dative, an accusative, and
+ instrumental case? Disprove the doctrine that the genitive in -s (_the
+ father's son_) is formed out of the combination _father his_.
+
+ 5. Decline _me_, _thee_, and _ye_.
+
+ 6. How far is there a true reflective pronoun in English?
+
+ 7. What were the original powers and forms of _she_, _her_, _it_? What
+ case is _him_? What is the power and origin of _the_ in such
+ expressions as _all the more_? Decline _he_ in Anglo-Saxon. Investigate
+ the forms _these_ and _those_, _whose_, _what_, _whom_, _which_,
+ _myself_, _himself_, _herself_, _such_, _every_.
+
+ 8. What is the power (real or supposed) of the -er in _over_, and in
+ _either_?
+
+ 9. What words in the present English are explained by the following
+ forms--_sutiza_ in Moeso-Gothic, and _scearpor_, _neah_, _yldre_, in
+ Anglo-Saxon? Explain the forms, _better_, _worse_, _more_, _less_.
+
+ 10. Analyze the words _former_, _next_, _upmost_, _thirty_,
+ _streamlet_, _sweetheart_, _duckling_.
+
+ 11. Translate _Ida waes Eopping_. Analyze the word _Wales_.
+
+ 12. Exhibit the extent to which the noun partakes of the character of
+ the verb, and _vice vers[^a]_. What were the Anglo-Saxon forms of, _I
+ can call_, _I begin to call_?
+
+ 13. Investigate the forms, _drench_, _raise_, _use_ (the verb),
+ _clothe_.
+
+ 14. _Thou speakest_. What is the peculiarity of the form? _We loven_,
+ _we love_, account for this.
+
+ 15. _Thou rannest_ = (_tu cucurristi_). Is this an unexceptionable
+ form? if not, why?
+
+ 16. What are the _moods_ in English? What the _tenses_? How far is the
+ division of verbs into weak and strong tenses natural? Account for the
+ double forms _swam_ and _swum_. Enumerate the other verbs in the same
+ class. Explain the forms _taught_, _wrought_, _ought_, _did_, (from
+ _do_ = _facio_), _did_ (from _do_ = _valeo_), _minded_.
+
+ 17. Define the term _irregular_, so as to raise the number of irregular
+ verbs, in English, to more than a hundred. Define the same term, so as
+ to reduce them to none. Explain the form _could_.
+
+ 18. What is the construction of _meseems_ and _methinks_? Illustrate
+ the _future_ power of be. _Werden_ in German means _become_--in what
+ form does the word appear in English?
+
+ 19. _To err is human_,--_the rising_ in the North. Explain these
+ constructions. Account for the second -r in _forlorn_; and for the y in
+ y_cleped_.
+
+ 20. Explain the difference between _composite_ and _de-composite_
+ words, _true_ and _improper compounds_. Analyze the word _nightingale_.
+
+ 21. How far are adverbs inflected? Distinguish between a _preposition_
+ and a _conjunction_.
+
+ 22. Explain the forms _there_, _thence_, _yonder_, and _anon_.
+
+ 23. What part of speech is _mine_?
+
+ 24. What is the probable origin of the -d in such preterites as
+ call-ed.
+
+ PART V.
+
+ 1. Explain the terms _Syntax_, _Ellipsis_, _Pleonasm_, _Zeugma_, _Pros
+ to semainomenon_, _Apposition_, and _Convertibility_, giving
+ illustrations of each.
+
+ 2. What is the government of adjectives?
+
+ 3. What is the construction in--
+
+ a. Rob _me_ the Exchequer.--SHAKSPEARE.
+ b. Mount _ye_ on horseback.
+ c. _His_ mother.
+ d. If the salt have lost _his_ savour.
+ e. Myself _is_ weak.
+ f. This is _mine_.
+
+ 4. What are the concords between the relative and antecedent? How far
+ is, _whom_ do they say that I am, an exceptionable expression?
+
+ 5. _Eteocles and Polynices killed each other._ What is the construction
+ here? _Ils se battaient, l'un l'autre_--_Ils se battaient, les uns les
+ autres._ Translate these two sentences into English. _My wife and
+ little ones are well._ What is the origin of the word _ones_ here? _It
+ _was_ those who spoke_. _These _was_ those who spoke_. Why is one of
+ those expressions correct, and the other incorrect?
+
+ 6. What is the difference between--
+
+ _The_ secretary and treasurer,
+ and
+ _The_ secretary and _the_ treasurer?
+
+ What is that between--
+
+ The first two--
+ and
+ The two first?
+
+ 7. What is the construction of--
+
+ He sleeps the sleep of the righteous?
+
+ 8. Whether do you say--It is I your master who command you, or It is I
+ your master who commands you!
+
+ 9. Barbican it _hight_. Translate this into Latin.
+
+ 10. Explain in full the following constructions--
+
+ a. I have ridden a horse.
+ b. I am to blame.
+ c. I am beaten.
+ d. A part of the body.
+ e. All fled but John.
+
+ 11. What is meant by the _Succession of Tenses_? Show the logical
+ necessity of it.
+
+ 12. Or _hear'st_ thou rather pure ethereal stream,
+ Whose fountain _who can_ tell?--MILTON.
+
+ Give the meaning of this passage, and explain the figure of speech
+ exhibited in the words in Italics.
+
+ 13. The _door_ being open the steed was stolen.--In what case is
+ _door_?
+
+ PART VI.
+
+ 1. The way was long, the wind was cold. Express the metre of this
+ symbolically.
+
+ 2. Define _rhyme_.
+
+ 3. Give instances of _Service metre_, _Blank heroics_, _Alexandrines_.
+
+ PART VII.
+
+ 1. How far do the present dialects of England coincide with the parts,
+ that took their names from the _Angles_ and the _Saxons_ respectively.
+
+ 2. What traces of Danish or Norse occupancy do we find in local names?
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+NOTES.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+[1] The immediate authority for these descents, dates, and localities is
+Sharon Turner. They are nearly the same as those which are noticed in Mr.
+Kemble's _Saxons in England_. In the former writer, however, they are given
+as historical facts; in the latter they are subjected to criticism, and
+considered as exceptionable.
+
+[2] It is from Beda that the current opinions as to the details of the
+Anglo-Saxon invasion are taken; especially the threefold division into
+Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. These migrations were so large and numerous that
+the original country of the Angles was left a desert. The distribution of
+the three divisions over the different parts of England was also Beda's.
+
+The work of this important writer--the great luminary of early England--is
+the _Historia Ecclesiastica_, a title which prepares us for a great
+preponderance of the ecclesiastical over the secular history.
+
+Now Beda's date was the middle of the eighth century.
+
+And his locality was the monastery of Wearmouth, in the county of Durham.
+
+Both of these facts must be borne in mind when we consider the value of his
+authority, i.e., his means of knowing, as determined by the conditions of
+time and place.
+
+Christianity was introduced among the Anglo-Saxons of Kent A.D. 597. For
+the times between them and A.D. 740, we have in Mr. Kemble's _Codex
+Diplomaticus_ eighty-five charters, all in Latin, and most of them of
+uncertain authenticity. They are chiefly grants of different kings of Kent,
+Wessex, the Hwiccas, Mercia, and Northumberland, a few being of Bishops.
+
+[3] Gildas was a _British_ ecclesiastic, as Beda was an _English_ one. His
+locality was North Wales: his time earlier than Beda's by perhaps one
+hundred years.
+
+He states that he was born the year of the _pugna Badonica_, currently
+called the _Battle of Bath_.
+
+Now a chronological table called _Annales Cambrenses_, places that event
+within one hundred years of the supposed landing of Hengist.
+
+But there is no reason for believing this to be a cotemporary entry. Hence,
+all that can be safely said of Gildas is that he was about as far removed
+from the seat of the Germanic invasions, in locality, as Beda, whilst in
+point of time he was nearer.
+
+As a writer he is far inferior, being pre-eminently verbose, vague, and
+indefinite.
+
+_Gildas_, as far as he states facts at all, gives the _British_ account of
+the conquest.
+
+No other documents have come down to our time.
+
+Beda's own authorities--as we learn from his introduction--were certain of
+the most learned bishops and abbots of his cotemporaries, of whom he sought
+special information as to the antiquities of their own establishments. Of
+cotemporary writers, in the way of authority, there is no mention.
+
+For the times between the "accredited date of Hengist and Horsa's landing
+(A.D. 449) and A.D. 597 (a period of about one hundred and fifty years) the
+only authorities are a few quotations from Solinus, Gildas, and a Legendary
+Life of St. Germanus."--_Saxons in Engl._ i. 27.
+
+[4] This account is from Jornandes, who is generally considered as the
+chief repertory of the traditions respecting the Gothic populations. He
+lived about A.D. 530. The Gepidae were said to be the _laggards_ of the
+migration, and the vessel which carried them to have been left behind: and
+as _gepanta_ in their language meant _slow_, their name is taken therefrom.
+
+[5] Widukind was a monk of Corvey in Flanders, who wrote the
+Ecclesiastical History of his monastery.
+
+[6] Geoffry of Monmouth, like Gildas, is a _British_ authority. His date
+was the reign of Henry II. The _Welsh_ traditions form the staple of
+Geoffry's work, for which it is the great repertory.
+
+[7] The _date_ of this was the reign of Marcus Antoninus. Its _place_, the
+Danubian provinces of Rhaetia, and Pannonia. It was carried on by the
+Germans of the _frontier_ or _march_--from whence the name--in alliance
+with the Jazyges, who were undoubtedly Slavonic, and the Quadi, who were
+probably so. Its details are obscure--the chief authority being Dio
+Cassius.
+
+[8] The reign of Valentinian was from A.D. 365 to A.D. 375.
+
+[9] The date of this has been variously placed in A.D. 438, and between
+A.D. 395 and A.D. 407. Either is earlier than A.D. 449.
+
+[10] The Saxon Chronicle consists of a series of entries from the earliest
+times to the reign of King Stephen, each under its year: the year of the
+Anglo-Saxon invasion being the usual one, i.e., A.D. 449. The value of such
+a work depends upon the extent to which the chronological entries are
+cotemporaneous with the events noticed. Where this is the case, the
+statement is of the highest historical value; where, however, it is merely
+taken from some earlier authority, or from a tradition, it loses the
+character of a _register_, and becomes merely a series of dates--correct or
+incorrect as the case may be. Where the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle really begins
+to be a cotemporaneous register is uncertain--all that is certain being
+that it _is_ so for the _latest_, and is _not_ so for _earliest_ entries.
+The notices in question come under the former class. The Anglo-Saxon
+Chronicle had been edited by the Master of Trinity College, Oxford (Dr.
+Ingram), and analyzed by Miss Gurney.
+
+[11] Asserius was a learned Welsh ecclesiastic who was invited by King
+Alfred into Wessex, and employed by that king as one of his associates and
+assistants in civilizing and instructing his subjects. Several works are
+mentioned as having been written by Asserius, but the only one extant is
+his history of King Alfred, which is a chronicle of various events between
+the year of Alfred's birth, A.D. 849, to A.D. 889.
+
+Asserius is supposed to have died Bishop of Sherborne, A.D. 910.
+
+[12] The compounds of the Anglo-Saxon word _ware_ = _occupants_,
+_inhabitants_, are too numerous to leave any doubt as to this, and several
+other, derivations. _Cant-ware_ = _Cant-icolae_ = _people of Kent_:
+_Hwic-ware_ = _Hviccas_ = _the people_ of parts of Worcestershire,[67]
+Glostershire, and (to judge from the name) of _War-wick_shire also.
+
+[13] The Annales Saxonici, or Saxon Chronicles, embrace the history of
+Britain, between the landing of Caesar and the accession of Henry II. They
+are evidently the work of various and successive writers, who were Saxon
+ecclesiastics. But nothing certain can be affirmed of the authors of their
+respective portions.--See Note 10.
+
+[14] See Note 2.
+
+[15] Adam of Bremen was a Minor Canon of the Cathedral of Bremen, about
+the years 1067-1077. He travelled in Denmark, and was in great favour with
+King Sweyn of that country. He wrote an Ecclesiastical History of the
+spread of Christianity in the North, to which he appended a description of
+the geography, population, and archaeology of Denmark and the neighbouring
+countries.
+
+[16] Ethelward was an Anglo-Saxon nobleman, who wrote a chronicle of
+events from the creation of the world to the death of King Edgar, A.D. 875.
+
+[17] The following is a specimen of the Frisian of Gysbert Japicx, in
+metre. It is part of a rustic song, supposed to be sung by a peasant on his
+return from a wedding feast. Date about A.D. 1650.
+
+ "Sw['i]et, ja sw['i]et, is't oer 'e m['i]ete,
+ 'T bo['a]skiere f['o]ar ['e] jonge lie,
+ Kreftich sw['i]et is't, sizz ik jiette,
+ As it giet mei alders r['i]e.
+ Mai ['o]ars tiget 'et to 'n pl['e]ach,
+ As ik ['o]an myn geafeunt seach."
+
+Translation of the same from Bosworth's _Anglo-Saxon Dictionary_, p.
+lxxiii.
+
+ "Sweet, yes, sweet is over (_beyond_) measure,
+ The marrying for the young lede (_people_);
+ Most sweet is it, I say yet (_once more_),
+ When (_as_) it goes with the rede (_counsel_) of the elders.
+ But otherwise it tends to a plague,
+ As I saw on (_by the example of_) my village fellow."
+
+[18] Of the early constitution of states of East Friesland, we have a
+remarkable illustration in the old Frisian Laws. These are in the native
+Frisian tongue, and, except that they represent republican rather than
+monarchical institutions, are similar in form, in spirit, to the Saxon.
+
+[19] The great blow against the sovereignty of Rome, and the one which
+probably prevented Germany from becoming a Roman province, was struck by
+the Cheruscan Arminius against Quintilius Varus, in the reign of Augustus.
+The date of the organized insurrection of Arminius was A.D. 9; the place,
+the neighbourhood of Herford, or Engern, in Westphalia. Drawn into an
+inpracticable part of the country, the troops of Varus were suddenly
+attacked and cut to pieces--consisting of more than three legions. "Never
+was victory more decisive, never was the liberation of an oppressed people
+more instantaneous and complete. Throughout Germany the Roman garrisons
+were assailed and cut off; and, within a few weeks after Varus had fallen,
+the German soil was freed from the foot of an invader.
+
+"Had Arminius been supine or unsuccessful, our Germanic ancestors would
+have been enslaved or exterminated in their original seats along the Eyder
+and the Elbe. This island would never have borne the name of England, and
+we, this great English nation, whose race and language are now overrunning
+the earth, from one end of it to the other, would have been utterly cut off
+from existence."[68]
+
+[20] _Heliand_ is the gerund from _helian_ = _heal_, and means _the
+Healer_ or _Saviour_. It is the name of an old Saxon poem, in alliterative
+metre, of the tenth or eleventh century, in the dialect supposed to have
+belonged to the parts about Essen, Cleves, and Munster in Westphalia. It is
+a sort of Gospel Harmony, or Life of Christ, taken from the Gospels. It has
+been edited by Schmeller.
+
+[21] Hildubrand and Hathubrant, father and son, are two legendary heroes
+belonging to that cycle of German fiction of which Theodoric of Verona is
+the centre. A fragment containing an account of their hostile meeting,
+being mutually unknown, in alliterative metre, represents the _fictional_
+poetry of the old Saxons in the same way (though not to the same extent)
+that the Heliand represents their sacred poetry. The "Hildubrand and
+Hathubrant" have been edited by Grimm.
+
+[22] In a language which for a long time was considered to be the Dutch of
+Holland in its oldest known form, there is an imperfect translation of the
+Psalms; referred by the best writers on the subject to the reign of
+Charlemagne, and thence called the Carolinian Psalms. The best text of this
+is to be found in a Dutch periodical, the _Taalkundig Magazijn_.
+
+[23] _Beowulf_ is by far the most considerable poem, not only in
+Anglo-Saxon, but in any old Gothic tongue. It has been admirably edited and
+translated by Mr. Kemble. The subject is the account of Beowulf, an Angle
+hero--Angle but not English, as the scene of the poem is on the Continent.
+In its present form it shows traces of the revision of some Christian
+writer: the basis, however, of its subject, and the manners it describes,
+are essentially Pagan. The most remarkable feature in the poem is the fact
+that no allusion is made to England--so that, _Anglo_-Saxon as the work
+is--it belongs to the Anglo-Saxons of Germany before they became English.
+
+[24] A Gospel Harmony translated from the one of Tatian, exists in a
+dialect too little purely High German, to pass absolutely as such, yet less
+_Low_ German than the Dutch of Holland. This belongs to the _Middle_ Rhine,
+and is called _Frank_.
+
+[25] The Alemannic is the German of the _Upper_ Rhine; the dialect out of
+which the Bavarian and Swiss grew. Its chief specimens occur in--
+
+ a. _The Glosses of Kero_--
+ b. _The Psalms_ by a monk named _Notker_.
+ c. A life of _Anno_ of Cologne.
+ d. The Song of Solomon, by Willeram.
+ e. _Musrpilli_, an alliterative poem.
+ f. _Krist_, a life of Christ, by Otford, and others less important.
+
+Most of these (along with Tatian), are to be found in Schilter's
+_Thesaurus_.
+
+(Original footnotes)
+
+[26] In Hampshire.
+
+[27] In Northern Germany.
+
+[28] The Eyder.
+
+[29] See ss. 21-29.
+
+[30] Saxons _North of the Elbe_ (_Albis_).
+
+[31] See Notes 17 and 18.
+
+[32] De Mor. Germ. 40.
+
+[33] Meaning _ditch_
+
+[34] This list is taken from Smart's valuable and logical English Grammar.
+
+[35] As in _Shotover Hill_, near Oxford.
+
+[36] As in _Jerusalem artichoke_.
+
+[37] A sort of silk.
+
+[38] _Ancient Cassio_--"Othello."
+
+[39]
+
+ Be she constant, be she fickle,
+ Be she flame, or be she _ickle_.--SIR C. SEDLEY.
+
+[40] Or _periphrastic_.
+
+[41] That of the verb substantive, _if I were_, subjunctive, as opposed to
+_I was_, indicative.
+
+[42] This by no means implies that such was the power of [sigma], [zeta],
+[gamma], [kappa], in Greek. They are merely convenient symbols.
+
+[43] As a _name_, _Sigma = Samech_.
+
+[44] Of the Hebrew and Greek tables.
+
+[45] In _thin_.
+
+[46] In _thine_.
+
+[47] Write one letter twice.
+
+[48] This explains the words, "Whatever they may have been originally," and
+"to a certain extent," in s. 212.
+
+[49] Used as adverbs.
+
+[50] Used as the plurals of _he_, _she_, and _it_.
+
+[51] Different from _ilk_.
+
+[52] Or _call-s_.
+
+[53] _Thou sangest_, _thou drankest_, &c.--For a reason given in the
+sequel, these forms are less exceptionable than _sungest_, _drunkest_, &c.
+
+[54] The forms marked thus * are either obsolete or provincial.
+
+[55] Obsolete.
+
+[56] Sounded _wun_.
+
+[57] Pronounced _ment_.
+
+[58] Pronounced _herd_.
+
+[59] Pronounced _sed_.
+
+[60] So pronounced.
+
+[61] Pronounced _leevd_, _cleevd_, _bereevd_, _deeld_, _feeld_, _dreemd_,
+_lernd_.
+
+[62] Pronounced _delt_.
+
+[63] Found rarely; _bist_ being the current form.--"Deutsche Grammatik," i.
+894.
+
+[64] Notwithstanding the extent to which a relative may take the appearance
+of a 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.
+
+[65] "Latin Prose Composition," p. 123.
+
+[66] This is worked out more fully in the "Germany of Tacitus, with
+Ethnological Notes," by the present author.
+
+[67] Preserved in the name of the town Wick-war.
+
+[68] "The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World," by Professor Creasy.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+Elements of Moral Philosophy:
+
+ANALYTICAL, SYNTHETICAL, AND PRACTICAL.
+
+BY HUBBARD WINSLOW.
+
+12mo. 480 pages. Price $1 50.
+
+This work is an original and thorough examination of the fundamental laws
+of Moral Science, and of their relations to Christianity and to practical
+life. It has already taken a firm stand among our highest works of
+literature and science. From the numerous commendations of it by our most
+learned and competent men, we have room for only the following brief
+extracts:
+
+ _From the _REV. THOMAS H. SKINNER, D.D._, of the Union Theol. Sem.,
+ N.Y._
+
+ "It is a work of uncommon merit, on a subject very difficult to be
+ treated well. His analysis is complete. He has shunned no question
+ which his purpose required him to answer, and he has met no adversary
+ which he has not overcome."
+
+ _From _REV. L. P. HICKOK_, Vice-President of Union College._
+
+ "I deem the book well adapted to the ends proposed in the preface. The
+ style is clear, the thoughts perspicuous. I think it calculated to do
+ good, to promote the truth, to diffuse light and impart instruction to
+ the community, in a department of study of the deepest interest to
+ mankind."
+
+ _From _REV. JAMES WALKER, D.D._, President of Harvard University._
+
+ "Having carefully examined the more critical parts, to which my
+ attention has been especially directed, I am free to express my
+ conviction of the great clearness, discrimination, and accuracy of the
+ work, and of its admirable adaptation to its object."
+
+ _From _REV. RAY PALMER, D.D._, of Albany._
+
+ "I have examined this work with great pleasure, and do not hesitate to
+ say that in my judgment it is greatly superior to any treatise I have
+ seen, in all the essential requisites of a good text-book."
+
+ _From _PROF. ROUSSEAU D. HITCHCOCK, D.D._, of Union Theol. Sem., N.Y._
+
+ "The task of mediating between science and the popular mind, is one
+ that requires a peculiar gift of perspicuity, both in thought and
+ style; and this, I think, the author possesses in an eminent degree. I
+ am pleased with its comprehensiveness, its plainness, and its fidelity
+ to the Christian stand-point."
+
+ _From _PROF. HENRY B. SMITH, D.D._, of the Union Theol. Sem., N.Y._
+
+ "It commends itself by its clear arrangement of the topics, its
+ perspicuity of language, and its constant practical bearings. I am
+ particularly pleased with its views of conscience. Its frequent and
+ pertinent illustrations, and the Scriptural character of its
+ explanations of the particular duties, will make the work both
+ attractive and valuable as a text-book, in imparting instruction upon
+ this vital part of philosophy."
+
+ _From _W. D. WILSON, D.D._, Professor of Intellectual and Moral
+ Philosophy in Hobart Free College._
+
+ "I have examined the work with care, and have adopted it as a text-book
+ in the study of Moral Science. I consider it not only sound in
+ doctrine, but clear and systematic in method, and withal pervaded with
+ a prevailing healthy tone of sentiment, which cannot fail to leave
+ behind, in addition to the truths it inculcates, an impression in favor
+ of those truths. I esteem this one of the greatest merits of the book.
+ In this respect it has no equal, so far as I know; and I do not
+ hesitate to speak of it as being preferable to any other work yet
+ published, for use in all institutions where Moral Philosophy forms a
+ department in the course of instruction."
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+A History of Philosophy:
+
+AN EPITOME.
+
+BY DR. ALBERT SCHWEGLER.
+
+TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL GERMAN, BY JULIUS H. SEELYE.
+
+12mo. 365 pages. Price $1 50.
+
+This translation is designed to supply a want long felt by both teachers
+and students in our American colleges. We have valuable histories of
+Philosophy in English, but no _manual_ on this subject so clear, concise,
+and comprehensive as the one now presented. Schwegler's work bears the
+marks of great learning, and is evidently written by one who has not only
+studied the original sources for such a history, but has thought out for
+himself the systems of which he treats. He has thus seized upon the real
+germ of each system, and traced its process of development with great
+clearness and accuracy. The whole history of speculation, from Thales to
+the present time, is presented in its consecutive order. This rich and
+important field of study, hitherto so greatly neglected, will, it is hoped,
+receive a new impulse among American students through Mr. Seelye's
+translation. It is a book, moreover, invaluable for reference, and should
+be in the possession of every public and private library.
+
+ _From _L. P. HICKOK_, Vice-President of Union College._
+
+ "I have had opportunity to hear a large part of Rev. Mr. Seelye's
+ translation of Schwegler's History of Philosophy read from manuscript,
+ and I do not hesitate to say that it is a faithful, clear, and
+ remarkably precise English rendering of this invaluable Epitome of the
+ History of Philosophy. It is exceedingly desirable that it should be
+ given to American students of philosophy in the English language, and I
+ have no expectation of its more favorable and successful accomplishment
+ than in this present attempt. I should immediately introduce it as as a
+ text-book in the graduate's department under my own instruction, if it
+ be favorably published, and cannot doubt that other teachers will
+ rejoice to avail themselves of the like assistance from it."
+
+ _From _HENRY B. SMITH_, Professor of Christian Theology, Union
+ Theological Seminary, N.Y._
+
+ "It will well reward diligent study, and is one of the best works for a
+ text-book in our colleges upon this neglected branch of scientific
+ investigation."
+
+ _From _N. PORTER_, Professor of Intellectual Philosophy in Yale
+ College._
+
+ "It is the only book translated from the German which professes to give
+ an account of the recent German systems which seems adapted to give any
+ intelligible information on the subject to a novice."
+
+ _From _GEO. P. FISHER_, Professor of Divinity in Yale College._
+
+ "It is really the best Epitome of the History of Philosophy now
+ accessible to the English student."
+
+ _From _JOSEPH HAVEN_, Professor of Mental Philosophy in Amherst
+ College._
+
+ "As a manual and brief summary of the whole range of speculative
+ inquiry, I know of no work which strikes me more favorably."
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+A Digest of English Grammar.
+
+BY L. T. COVELL.
+
+12mo. 219 pages. Price 60 cents.
+
+This work is designed as a text-book for the use of schools and academies;
+it is the result of long experience of an eminently successful teacher, and
+will be found to possess many peculiar advantages.
+
+The work is both synthetical and analytical, and its principles are
+strictly practical; the different subjects are carefully separated and
+methodically arranged, so that all difficulty as to what belongs to
+Etymology, Syntax, and Analysis, is entirely removed, and the latter, which
+is very properly placed in the first part of Syntax, is rendered quite as
+simple and easy of comprehension as the most plain portion of grammar.
+
+One subject is taken up at a time, and, when fully explained, models of
+Analysis are given, and examples for practice follow.
+
+The principles of the work are sound; the definitions are direct, short,
+and accurate.
+
+The rules, though ample, are few, plain, and concise; and the language
+throughout the work is simple, clear, and expressive.
+
+The method of treating the Elementary Sounds, is that which is now highly
+approved.
+
+The principles of Derivation, and of Orthographic Analysis, are brought
+within the comprehension of the youngest learner.
+
+ _From Forty-four Teachers of Public Schools, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania._
+
+ "The undersigned have examined Covell's Digest of English Grammar, and
+ are of opinion that in the justness of its general views, the
+ excellence of its style, the brevity, accuracy, and perspicuity of its
+ definitions and rules, the numerous examples and illustrations, the
+ adaptation of its synthetical exercises, the simplicity of its method
+ of analysis, and in the plan of its arrangement, this work surpasses
+ any other Grammar now before the public; and that in all respects it is
+ most admirably adapted to the use of schools and academies."
+
+ _From _JOHN M. WOLCOTT, A.M._, Principal and Superintendent of Ninth
+ Ward School, Pittsburg, Pa._
+
+ "Covell's Digest of English Grammar not only evinces the most unceasing
+ labor, the most extensive research, the most unrelaxing effort, and the
+ most devoted self-sacrificing study of its author, but it is the most
+ complete, the most perfect, and, to me, the most satisfactory
+ exposition of English Grammar that has come to my notice. It appears to
+ me that every youth aspiring to become master of the English language,
+ from the rudimental principles to the full, round, beautiful,
+ faultless, perfect period, will make this volume his '_vade mecum_.'"
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+Natural Philosophy:
+
+ EMBRACING THE MOST RECENT DISCOVERIES IN THE VARIOUS BRANCHES OF
+ PHYSICS, AND EXHIBITING THE APPLICATION OF SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES IN
+ EVERY-DAY LIFE. ACCOMPANIED WITH FULL DESCRIPTIONS OF EXPERIMENTS,
+ PRACTICAL EXERCISES, AND NUMEROUS ILLUSTRATIONS.
+
+BY G. P. QUACKENBOS, A.M.
+
+12mo. 450 pages. Price $1 25.
+
+This book, which is illustrated in the most liberal manner, is equally
+adapted for use with or without apparatus. It is distinguished
+
+ 1. For its remarkable clearness.
+
+ 2. For its fullness of illustration.
+
+ 3. For its original method of dealing with difficulties.
+
+ 4. For its correction of numerous errors heretofore unfortunately
+ stereotyped in School Philosophies.
+
+ 5. For its explanation of scientific principles as they appear in
+ every-day life.
+
+ 6. For its practical application of these principles in questions
+ presented for the pupil's solution.
+
+ 7. For a signal perspicuity of arrangement. One thing being presented
+ at a time and everything in its proper place, the whole is impressed
+ without difficulty on the mind.
+
+ 8. For the interest with which it invests the subject. From the outset,
+ the student is fascinated and filled with a desire to fathom the
+ wonders of the material world.
+
+ 9. For the embodiment of all recent discoveries in the various
+ departments of philosophy. Instead of relying on the obsolete
+ authorities that have furnished the matter for many of our popular
+ school Philosophies, the author has made it his business to acquaint
+ himself with the present state of science, and thus produced such a
+ work as is demanded by the progressive spirit of the age.
+
+All who have examined this book commend it in the highest terms.
+
+ "Mr. QUACKENBOS has long been favorably known as a teacher and also a
+ writer of educational books. This elementary work on Natural Philosophy
+ strikes us as being one of his most useful and happy efforts."--_N. Y.
+ Courier and Enquirer._
+
+ "A very complete system. We have been particularly struck with the
+ conciseness and intelligible character of the definitions and
+ explanations."--_N. Y. Observer._
+
+ "It is much the most complete and instructive school-book on Natural
+ Philosophy that we have ever seen."--_Christian Union, Louisville, Ky._
+
+ "Every reasonable requirement is met in this new work."--_Gazette,
+ Pittsburg, Pa._
+
+ "The whole arrangement is decidedly superior to anything of the kind
+ that ever fell under our inspection."--_Post, Hartford, Conn._
+
+ "It places the principles and rules of philosophy within the reach of
+ the young student in a most attractive form."--_Evening Transcript,
+ Boston._
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+THE SERIES COMPLETED
+
+ * * * * *
+
+PERFECTED EDITIONS
+
+OF
+
+Webster's Dictionaries,
+
+FOR
+
+SCHOOLS AND EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS OF EVERY GRADE, AS WELL AS FAMILIES
+AND GENERAL USE.
+
+ WEBSTER'S POCKET DICTIONARY, Diamond, 32mo. Prices 50 cts. and 84 cts.
+ WEBSTER'S PRIMARY SCHOOL DICTIONARY, 304 pp., 16mo. Price 50 cts.
+ WEBSTER'S COMMON SCHOOL DICTIONARY, 320 pp., 12mo. Price 75 cts.
+ WEBSTER'S HIGH SCHOOL DICTIONARY, 350 pp., 12mo. Price $1 00.
+ WEBSTER'S ACADEMIC DICTIONARY, 472 pp., cap 4to. Price $1 50.
+ WEBSTER'S COUNTING-HOUSE AND FAMILY DICTIONARY, 522 pp., Imperial 12mo.
+ Price $1 75.
+
+ The publishers have now the pleasure of presenting the abridgments of
+ Webster's American Dictionary in a carefully revised, greatly improved,
+ and, as nearly as possible, perfected form. The series is rendered
+ complete, and made to include a book just suited to every purpose for
+ which an abridgment of the complete work can be desired, by the
+ introduction of two new books, viz.: The Common School Dictionary,
+ Intermediate between the Primary School and the High School; and the
+ Counting-House and Family Dictionary, a much more full and
+ comprehensive abridgment than we have before offered. The other books
+ in the series have also been most carefully revised, and the new
+ abridgments prepared, by and under the direction of Prof. C. E.
+ Goodrich and Mr. Wm. G. Webster, with assistance from other most
+ competent sources, no pains having been spared to remove any, however
+ slight, grounds for reasonable objection which may have existed to the
+ books in the old form, and to render them as nearly perfect as
+ possible, and yet more worthy the high position they occupy as the
+
+ STANDARD DICTIONARIES OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE,
+
+ proved to be such by a sale many times greater than that of all other
+ dictionaries published in America combined, and acknowledged such by
+ our Courts of Justice, as well as the people at large.
+
+ The old stereotype plates having been much worn by the immense numbers
+ of books printed from them, the occasion has been embraced to make the
+ very thorough revision and improvement now completed. All the books in
+ the series are now printed, therefore, on
+
+ ENTIRELY NEW ELECTROTYPE PLATES,
+
+ and are uniform in Definitions, Orthography, Orthoepy, &c.
+
+ It is deemed unnecessary to enlarge upon the claims of these well-known
+ standard works. _Literally thousands_ of testimonials to their
+ superiority to all others are in the hands of the publishers, from the
+ most eminent educational and literary men in all parts of the country.
+ From year to year their sale is steadily and rapidly increasing. It is
+ believed that the mere _increase_ in the sale of these abridgments the
+ present year, will be greater than the entire combined sale of all
+ other American Dictionaries.
+
+PUBLISHED BY MASON BROTHERS, NEW YORK.
+
+FOR SALE BY BOOKSELLERS GENERALLY.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+Class-Book of Physiology.
+
+BY B. N. COMINGS, M. D.,
+
+PROFESSOR OF PHYSIOLOGY, CHEMISTRY, AND NATURAL HISTORY, IN CONNECTICUT
+STATE NORMAL SCHOOL.
+
+12mo. 324 pages. Price $1 25.
+
+REVISED EDITION, WITH AN APPENDIX.
+
+Professor Comings' thorough acquaintance with every department of
+Physiology, and his long experience as a teacher of that science, qualify
+him in an eminent degree for preparing an accurate and useful text-book on
+the subject. He has lost no opportunity of introducing practical
+instructions in the principles of hygiene, thus not only making the pupil
+acquainted with the wondrous workmanship of his own frame, but showing him
+how to preserve it in a sound and healthy state. Avoiding technical terms,
+as far as possible, he has brought the subject fully within the
+comprehension of the young, and has clothed it with unusual interest, by
+judicious references to the comparative physiology of the inferior animals.
+Pictorial illustrations have been freely introduced, wherever it was
+thought they could aid or interest the student.
+
+Physiology cannot but be considered, by every intelligent and reflecting
+mind, an exceedingly interesting and necessary study. It makes us
+acquainted with the structure and uses of the organs of life, and the laws
+by which we may keep them active and vigorous for the longest period. The
+publishers would respectfully urge its importance on such teachers as have
+not heretofore made it a regular branch in their institutions; and would
+solicit, at the hands of all, an impartial examination of what is
+pronounced by good judges, "the best elementary text-book" on the science.
+
+ _From _M. Y. BROWN_, Principal of Webster School, New Haven._
+
+ "I have used Comings' Class-Book of Physiology for nearly two school
+ terms in the First Department of my school. I am happy to say that I
+ regard it the _best text-book_ on this important branch with which I
+ have any acquaintance. The subjects are systematically arranged; the
+ principles, facts, and illustrations are clearly and fully represented
+ to the pupil. I find that his introduction of Comparative Anatomy and
+ Physics, tends greatly to increase the interest of the pupil in this
+ _most important_ and necessary study. I therefore can cheerfully
+ recommend this admirable work to my fellow-teachers as one of rare
+ excellence, and hope it may take the rank it deserves as a text-book
+ upon this subject."
+
+ _From _ABRAHAM POWELSON, JR._, Teacher, Brooklyn, New York._
+
+ "After a very careful examination of the Class-Book of Physiology, by
+ Comings, I can freely say that I consider it a performance of superior
+ excellence. It embodies a fund of information surpassing in importance
+ and variety that of any other work of the kind which has come under my
+ notice."
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+"Get the Best."
+
+ * * * * *
+
+Webster's Quarto Dictionary.
+
+UNABRIDGED.--SOLD BY ALL BOOKSELLERS.
+
+PUBLISHED BY C. & G. MERRIAM, SPRINGFIELD, MASS.
+
+ _From_ DANIEL WEBSTER.
+
+ I possess many Dictionaries, and of most of the learned and cultivated
+ languages, ancient and modern; but I never feel that I am entirely
+ armed and equipped in this respect, without Dr. Webster at command.
+
+ [Illustration]
+
+ _From_ RUFUS CHOATE.
+
+ Messrs. G. &. C. Merriam:--Gentlemen, I have just had the honor of
+ receiving the noble volume in which you and the great lexicographer,
+ and the accomplished reviser, unite your labors to "bid the language
+ live." I accept it with the highest pride and pleasure, and beg to
+ adopt in its utmost strength and extent, the testimonial of Daniel
+ Webster.
+
+ [Illustration]
+
+ _From_ JOHN C. SPENCER.
+
+ Unquestionably the very best Dictionary of our language extant. Its
+ great accuracy in the definition and derivation of words, gives it an
+ authority that no other work on the subject possesses. It is constantly
+ cited and relied on in our Courts of Justice, in our legislative
+ bodies, and in public discussions, as entirely conclusive.
+
+ [Illustration]
+
+ _From_ ELIHU BURRITT.
+
+ Webster's great Dictionary may be regarded as bearing the same relation
+ to the English language which Newton's "_Principia_" does to the
+ sublime science of Natural Philosophy.
+
+ [Illustration]
+
+ _From _PRESIDENT HOPKINS_, Williams College_.
+
+ There is no American scholar who does not feel proud of the labors of
+ Dr. Webster as the pioneer of lexicography on this continent, and who
+ will not readily admit the great and distinctive merits of his
+ Dictionary.
+
+ [Illustration]
+
+ _From_ JOHN G. WHITTIER.
+
+ The best and safest guide of the students of our language.
+
+ [Illustration]
+
+ _From_ FITZ GREENE HALLECK.
+
+ Of the book itself I hear but one opinion from all around me, and do
+ but echo the universal voice in expressing my approval of its great
+ worth, and my belief that it has rendered any further research, or even
+ improvement in our time, unnecessary in its department of instruction.
+
+ [Illustration]
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+QUACKENBOS'S TEXT-BOOKS.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+ The Publishers invite particular attention to the following
+ school-books, by G. P. QUACKENBOS, A. M. They have stood the test of
+ criticism, and have become acknowledged standards on the subjects of
+ which they respectively treat. The secret of their success is their
+ perfect adaptation in style, language, and development of the subject,
+ to the pupil's comprehension. It is this that wins for them a general
+ introduction, and makes them special favorites with both teacher and
+ scholar.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+ QUACKENBOS'S ILLUSTRATED SCHOOL HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, from the
+ Earliest Discoveries to the Present Time: embracing a full account of
+ the Aborigines, Biographical Notices of Distinguished Men, and numerous
+ Maps, Plans of Battle-Fields, and Pictorial Illustrations. 12mo. 460
+ pages. Price $1 25.
+
+In elegance of style, accuracy, clearness, interest of narrative, richness
+of illustration, and adaptation to public and private schools of every
+grade, this History is pronounced by all who have examined it, far in
+advance of every similar work heretofore published.
+
+"I shall at once introduce it as the best work of the kind on this
+important branch of education."--_J. D. H. Corwine, Principal Kentucky
+Liberal Institute._
+
+"It is a most delightful volume, and, were I teaching a dozen classes in
+United States History, I would use no other book but yours."--_Rev. Charles
+Reynolds, Rector of Trinity Church, Columbus, Ohio._
+
+ * * * * *
+
+ QUACKENBOS'S FIRST LESSONS IN ENGLISH COMPOSITION. Intended for
+ beginners in Grammar and Composition. 12mo. 182 pages. Price 63 cts.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+ QUACKENBOS'S ADVANCED COURSE OF COMPOSITION AND RHETORIC. 12mo. 450
+ pages. Price $1 25. A Series of Practical Lessons on the Origin,
+ History, and Peculiarities of the English Language, Punctuation, Taste,
+ the Pleasures of the Imagination, Figures, Style and its essential
+ Properties, Criticism, and the various departments of Prose and
+ Poetical Composition.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+ QUACKENBOS'S ILLUSTRATED NATURAL PHILOSOPHY for Schools and Academies:
+ which unfolds the Laws of the Material World, treats of the various
+ branches of Physics, exhibits the Application of their Principles in
+ every day life and embraces the most recent Discoveries in each. 12mo.
+ 450 pages. Price $1 25.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+Confident as to the result of an impartial examination of the above works,
+the Publishers will mail a copy of either of them, post-paid, to any
+teacher or school officer remitting one-half of its price.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+ADVANCED COURSE OF
+
+Composition and Rhetoric.
+
+ A SERIES OF PRACTICAL LESSONS ON THE ORIGIN, HISTORY, AND PECULIARITIES
+ OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, PUNCTUATION, TASTE, THE PLEASURES OF THE
+ IMAGINATION, FIGURES, STYLE AND ITS ESSENTIAL PROPERTIES, CRITICISM,
+ AND THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS OF PROSE AND POETICAL COMPOSITION.
+ ILLUSTRATED WITH COPIOUS EXERCISES.
+
+BY G. P. QUACKENBOS, A. M.
+
+12mo. 450 pages. Price $1 25.
+
+This work is an eminently clear and practical text-book, and embraces a
+variety of important subjects, which have a common connection, and mutually
+illustrate each other; but which the pupil has heretofore been obliged to
+leave unlearned, or to search for among a number of different volumes.
+Claiming to give a comprehensive and practical view of our language in all
+its relations, this "Advanced Course" views it as a whole, no less than
+with reference to the individual words composing it; shows how it compares
+with other tongues; points out its beauties; indicates how they may best be
+made available; and, in a word, teaches the student the most philosophical
+method of digesting his thoughts, as well as the most effective mode of
+expressing them.
+
+It teaches Rhetoric not merely theoretically, like the old textbooks, but
+_practically_, illustrating every point with exercises to be prepared by
+the student, which at once test his familiarity with the principles laid
+down, and impress them on his mind so vividly that they can never be
+effaced.
+
+Hon. A. CONSTANTINE BARRY, State Superintendent of the Common Schools of
+Wisconsin, in a Report to the Legislature of that State, uses the following
+strong language in relation to QUACKENBOS'S works on Composition:
+
+ "It would be difficult to point out in these admirable books any thing
+ that we would desire to have altered; they meet our wants in every
+ respect, making no unreasonable draft on the time or patience of the
+ teacher, and leaving him no excuse for neglecting to make composition a
+ regular study, even with his younger classes. It is unnecessary to
+ compare these books with others on the subject, for THERE ARE NONE THAT
+ APPROACH THEM in clearness, comprehensiveness, excellence of
+ arrangement, and above all, in direct practical bearing. Affording an
+ insight into the mechanism of language, they will hardly fail to impart
+ facility and grace of expression, and to inspire a love for the
+ beauties of literature."
+
+ _From _PROF. JOHN N. PRATT_, of the University of Alabama._
+
+ "I have been using QUACKENBOS on Composition and Rhetoric in the
+ instruction of my classes in the University, and I am persuaded of its
+ GREAT EXCELLENCE. The First Lessons in Composition, by the same author,
+ I regard as very useful for beginners. Of these two books, I can speak
+ with the greatest confidence, and I do MOST HEARTILY RECOMMEND THEM to
+ all."
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+Illustrated School History
+
+OF THE UNITED STATES,
+
+FROM THE EARLIEST DISCOVERIES TO THE PRESENT TIME: EMBRACING A FULL ACCOUNT
+OF THE ABORIGINES, BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF DISTINGUISHED MEN, AND NUMEROUS
+MAPS, PLANS OF BATTLE-FIELDS, AND PICTORIAL ILLUSTRATIONS.
+
+BY G. P. QUACKENBOS, A. M.
+
+12mo. 473 pages. Price $1 25.
+
+ The Author has aimed to be _simple_, that youth of lower as well as
+ advanced classes may understand him; _clear_, that no indistinct or
+ erroneous impressions may be conveyed; _accurate_ in the recital of
+ facts; and _interesting_ as regards both matter and style. Avoiding
+ fragmentary statements, he has gone into detail sufficiently to show
+ events in their connections, convinced that a fairer idea of them is
+ thus imparted, and that facts otherwise dry may in this way be made
+ attractive and indelibly impressed on the mind. He has tried throughout
+ to be fair and national. He has neither introduced offensive allusions,
+ nor invidiously attempted to bias the minds of the young on
+ controverted questions connected with politics or religion.
+
+ The pronunciation of all difficult and foreign names is given in
+ brackets; and appropriate illustrations have been liberally provided.
+ Maps are as useful in history as in geography, and plans are often
+ essential to the lucid delineation of military movements. Both are here
+ presented wherever it was thought they would be of service.
+
+ In elegance of style, accuracy clearness, interest of narrative,
+ richness of illustration, and adaptation to the school-room, this
+ History is pronounced far in advance of every similar work heretofore
+ published.
+
+ _From _PROF. H. D. LATHROP_, Gambier, Ohio._
+
+ It seems to me admirably adapted to the purpose intended. The style is
+ simple and attractive, the narrative accurate and sufficiently minute,
+ the illustrations appropriate and elegant, and the typographical
+ execution all that could be desired.
+
+ _From _J. D. H. CORWINE_, Principal Kentucky Liberal Institute._
+
+ I shall at once introduce it as _the best-work of the kind_ on this
+ important branch of education.
+
+ _From _REV. JOSEPH SHACKELFORD_, Principal Institute, Moulton, Ala._
+
+ I think it superior to many that I have examined as a school-book. I
+ have been using Wilson's, but I think this is a much better book for
+ schools.
+
+ _From _REV. CHARLES REYNOLDS_, Rector of Trinity Church, Columbus,
+ Ohio._
+
+ It is a most delightful volume, and were I teaching a dozen classes in
+ United States History, I would use no other book but yours.
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+Corrections made to printed original.
+
+Contents 83--90. "Miscellaneous elements": 'Miscellaneons' in original.
+
+Contents 366. "Peacock, peahen": 'peahern' in original.
+
+Contents 416. "Zeugma": 'Leugma' in original.
+
+s. 29. "rather than the Anglo-Saxon itself": 'than' missing in original.
+
+s. 40. Sing. Gen. "T['u]ngunnar": 'T['u]ngunnor' in original (this doesn't
+match the previous table, also checked in Cleasby & Vigfusson's
+Icelandic-English Dictionary).
+
+s. 74. "They relate chiefly": 'The relate' in original.
+
+s. 87. "The history of the language of the United States is the history of
+a Germanic language.": 'languages of the United States' in original, but
+the sense seems to need the singular, viz. American English.
+
+s. 87. "gadus lota, or eel-pout": 'ell-pout' in original.
+
+s. 100. 1. "Of the dative singular the e is retained": 'sing-gular' in
+original across line break.
+
+s. 135. "or thus, riv-er, feve-r": 'fe-ver' in original (cannot be right as
+it is being contrasted to the previous 'fe-ver').
+
+s. 136. "Let, however, the n and the t of note": 'not' in original but is
+being contrasted to the 'not' in the previous sentence.
+
+s. 155. "it may be replaced by k": 'is may be ...' in original.
+
+s. 159. "The letters x and q": 'The letter ...' in original.
+
+s. 161. (Table of names) "17. Pe ... Pi": '17. Pi ... Phi' in original, but
+compare the preceding table and s. 175.
+
+s. 163. 16. (Hebrew) "Pe": 'Phi' in original, but compare s. 175.
+
+"s. 176." 's. 175' in original.
+
+s. 199 c. "as if written peace": 'as is ...' in original.
+
+s. 222. "it is me = it is I": 'it is me it = is I' in original.
+
+s. 235. Compound pronouns. 3. "some such word as ei": 'some such wore ...'
+in original.
+
+"s. 259." 's. 250' in original.
+
+s. 267. "the words lambkin, ...": 'the works ...' in original.
+
+s. 272. "the termination -ing": 'terminations ...' in original.
+
+s. 290. Anglo-Saxon. "Swang ... swungon": 'Swang ... swangon' in original.
+
+s. 308. "Thencan, th['o]hte.": 'Theecan, th['o]hte.' in original.
+
+s. 316. "the Latin word audeo": 'auedo' in original.
+
+s. 322. 4. "As early as A.D. 1085": 'nearly' in original.
+
+s. 324. "The current rule of the common grammarians is ...": 'is' missing
+in original.
+
+s. 354. "by the word rose prefixed.": 'the word tree' in original.
+
+s. 383. "The full amount of change in this respect": 'repect' in original.
+
+s. 397. a. "Anglo-Saxon mec and thec": 'mec and pec' in original.
+
+s. 408. "s[^o]k-id[^e]dun, from s[^o]k-ja": 's[^o]k-idd[^e]un' in original.
+
+s. 418. "the words Roman emperor": 'word' in original.
+
+s. 421. "the word speak is an infinitive": 'in an infinitive' in original.
+
+s. 433. "villainouser": 'villanouser' in original.
+
+s. 455. "4.": '3.' in original.
+
+s. 508. 2. "lest he fall upon us with pestilence.": 'us' missing in
+original (KJV Exod. v. 3.)
+
+s. 540. 5. "Blank verse.--Five measures": 'Pive measures' in original.
+
+s. 540. 8. "leaves the world to darkness and to me": 'leaves the word ...'
+in original.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of A Handbook of the English Language, by
+Robert Gordon Latham
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A HANDBOOK OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ***
+
+***** This file should be named 28436.txt or 28436.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+ https://www.gutenberg.org/2/8/4/3/28436/
+
+Produced by Colin Bell, Keith Edkins and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This
+file was produced from images generously made available
+by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+https://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
+paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works. See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+ the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+ you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is
+ owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+ has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+ Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments
+ must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+ prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+ returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+ sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+ address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+ the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+ you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+ does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+ License. You must require such a user to return or
+ destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+ and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+ Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+ money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+ electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+ of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+ distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+https://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at https://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+ Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+ Chief Executive and Director
+ gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit https://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including including checks, online payments and credit card
+donations. To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+ https://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
generated by cgit v1.2.3 (git 2.25.1) at 2026-06-27 10:57:29 +0000