diff options
| author | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-14 20:01:57 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-14 20:01:57 -0700 |
| commit | bb049b93f05b7cf931f89bff7e76be1250e7aa8d (patch) | |
| tree | ecdc8157b24a41ca0c765adbcd9ad2c92dc60fd3 /34595.txt | |
Diffstat (limited to '34595.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 34595.txt | 27035 |
1 files changed, 27035 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/34595.txt b/34595.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..74693c2 --- /dev/null +++ b/34595.txt @@ -0,0 +1,27035 @@ +The Project Gutenberg EBook 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: The English Language + +Author: Robert Gordon Latham + +Release Date: December 7, 2010 [EBook #34595] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ASCII + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE *** + + + + +Produced by Colin Bell, Keith Edkins and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This +file was produced from images generously made available +by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries) + + + + + +Transcriber's note: A few typographical errors have been corrected: they +are listed at the end of the text. + + * * * * * + + +In this e-text a-breve is represented by [)a], a-macron by [=a], +y-dotted-over by [.y], s-acute by ['s] etc. a-ring is [oa], a-circumflex is +[^a] and a-grave [`a]. Aesc, eth and thorn have been expanded to ae, dh and +th. + + * * * * * + + +Page numbers enclosed by curly braces (example: {25}) have been +incorporated to facilitate the use of the Table of Contents. + + * * * * * + + +THE + +ENGLISH LANGUAGE. + +BY + +ROBERT GORDON LATHAM, M.D., F.R.S., + +LATE FELLOW OF KING'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE; FELLOW OF THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF +PHYSICIANS, LONDON; MEMBER OF THE ETHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY, +NEW YORK; LATE PROFESSOR OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE +AND LITERATURE, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LONDON. + + + +THIRD EDITION, + +REVISED AND GREATLY ENLARGED. + + + +LONDON: + +TAYLOR, WALTON, AND MABERLY, + +UPPER GOWER STREET, AND IVY LANE, PATERNOSTER ROW. + +1850. + + * * * * * + +LONDON: +Printed by SAMUEL BENTLEY & Co., +Bangor House, Shoe Lane. + + * * * * * + + +TO + +THE REV. WILLIAM BUTCHER, M.A., + +OF + +ROPSLEY, LINCOLNSHIRE, + +IN ADMIRATION OF HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS A LINGUIST, + +AND AS A TESTIMONY OF PRIVATE REGARD, + +THE FOLLOWING PAGES ARE INSCRIBED, + +BY HIS FRIEND, + +THE AUTHOR. + + LONDON, + _Nov. 4, 1841_. + + * * * * * + + +{v} + +PREFACE + +TO THE + +SECOND EDITION. + + * * * * * + +The first edition of the present work was laid before the public, with the +intention of representing in a form as systematic as the extent of the +subject would allow, those views concerning the structure and relations of +the English language, which amongst such scholars as had studied them with +the proper means and opportunities, were then generally received; and +which, so being received, might take their stand as established and +recognized facts. With the results of modern criticism, as applied to his +native tongue, it was conceived that an educated Englishman should be +familiar. To this extent the special details of the language were +exhibited; and to this extent the work was strictly a Grammar of the +English Language. + +But besides this, it was well known that the current grammarians, and the +critical philologists, had long ceased to write alike upon the English, or +{vi} indeed upon any other, language. For this reason the sphere of the +work became enlarged; so that, on many occasions, general principles had to +be enounced, fresh terms to be defined, and old classifications to be +remodelled. This introduced extraneous elements of criticism, and points of +discussion which, in a more advanced stage of English philology, would have +been superfluous. It also introduced elements which had a tendency to +displace the account of some of the more special and proper details of the +language. There was not room for the exposition of general principles, for +the introduction of the necessary amount of preliminary considerations, and +for the _minutiae_ of an extreme analysis. Nor is there room for all this +at present. A work that should, at one and the same time, prove its +principles, instead of assuming them, supply the full and necessary +preliminaries in the way of logic, phonetics, and ethnology, and, besides +this, give a history of every variety in the form of every word, although, +perhaps, a work that one man might write, would be a full and perfect +_Thesaurus_ of the English Language, and, would probably extend to many +volumes. For, in the English language, there are many first principles to +be established, and much historical knowledge to be applied. Besides which, +the particular points both of etymology and syntax are far more numerous +than is imagined. Scanty as is the amount of declension and conjugation in +current use, there are to be found in every department of our grammars, +{vii} numerous isolated words which exhibit the fragments of a fuller +inflection, and of a more highly developed etymology. This is well-known to +every scholar who has not only viewed our language as a derivative of the +Anglo-Saxon, and observed that there are similar relations between many +other languages (_e. g._ the Italian and Latin, the German and +Moeso-Gothic, &c.), but who has, also, generalized the phenomena of such +forms of relationship and derivation, and enabled himself to see in the +most uninflected languages of the nineteenth century, the fragments of a +fuller and more systematic inflection, altered by time, but altered in a +uniform and a general manner. + +The point, however, upon which, in the prefaces both of the first edition +of the present work and of his English Grammar, the writer has most +urgently insisted is the _disciplinal_ character of grammatical studies in +general, combined with the fact, that the grammatical study of one's own +language is almost _exclusively_ disciplinal. It is undoubtedly true, that +in schools something that is called English Grammar is taught: and it is +taught pretty generally. It is taught so generally that, I believe, here +are only two classes of English boys and girls who escape it--those who are +taught nothing at all in any school whatever, and those who are sent so +early to the great classical schools (where nothing is taught but Latin and +Greek), as to escape altogether the English part of their scholastic +education. But {viii} what is it that is thus generally taught? not the +familiar practice of speaking English--that has been already attained by +the simple fact of the pupil having been born on English soil, and of +English parents. Not the scientific theory of the language--that is an +impossibility with the existing text-books. Neither, then, of these matters +is taught. Nevertheless labour is expended, and time is consumed. What is +taught? Something undoubtedly. The facts, that language is more or less +regular (_i. e._ capable of having its structure exhibited by rules); that +there is such a thing as grammar; and that certain expressions should be +avoided, are all matters worth knowing. And they are all taught even by the +worst method of teaching. But are these the proper objects of _systematic_ +teaching? Is the importance of their acquisition equivalent to the time, +the trouble, and the displacement of more valuable subjects, which are +involved in their explanation? I think not. Gross vulgarity of language is +a fault to be prevented; but the proper prevention is to be got from +habit--not rules. The proprieties of the English language are to be +learned, like the proprieties of English manners, by conversation and +intercourse; and the proper school for both, is the best society in which +the learner is placed. If this be good, systematic teaching is superfluous; +if bad, insufficient. There _are_ undoubted points where a young person may +doubt as to the grammatical propriety of a certain expression. In this case +let him ask some one older, and more instructed. Grammar, {ix} as an _art_, +is, undoubtedly, _the art of speaking and writing correctly_--but then, as +an _art_, it is only required for _foreign_ languages. For our _own_ we +have the necessary practice and familiarity. + +The claim of English grammar to form part and parcel of an English +education stands or falls with the value of the philological and historical +knowledge to which grammatical studies may serve as an introduction, and +with the value of scientific grammar as a _disciplinal_ study. I have no +fear of being supposed to undervalue its importance in this respect. Indeed +in assuming that it is very great, I also assume that wherever grammar is +studied as grammar, the language which the grammar so studied should +represent, must be the mother-tongue of the student; _whatever that +mother-tongue may be_--English for Englishmen, Welsh for Welshmen, French +for Frenchmen, German for Germans, &c. This study is the study of a theory; +and for this reason it should be complicated as little as possible by +points of practice. For this reason a man's mother-tongue is the best +medium for the elements of scientific philology, simply because it is the +one which he knows best in practice. + +Now if, over and above the remarks upon the English language, and the +languages allied to it, there occur in the present volume, episodical +discussions of points connected with other languages, especially the Latin +and Greek, it is because a greater portion of the current ideas on +philological subjects {x} is taken from those languages than from our own. +Besides which, a second question still stands over. There is still the +question as to the relative disciplinal merits of the different +_non_-vernacular languages of the world. What is the next best vehicle for +philological philosophy to our mother-tongue, whatever that mother-tongue +maybe? Each Athenian who fought at Salamis considered his own contributions +to that great naval victory the greatest; and he considered them so because +they were _his own_. So it is with the language which we speak, and use, +and have learned as our own. Yet each same Athenian awarded the second +place of honour to Themistocles. The great classical languages of Greece +and Rome are in the position of Themistocles. They are the best when the +question of ourselves and our possessions is excluded. They are the best in +the eyes of an indifferent umpire. More than this; if we take into account +the studies of the learned world, they are second only to the particular +mother-tongue of the particular student, in the way of practical +familiarity. Without either affirming or denying that, on the simple scores +of etymological regularity, etymological variety, and syntactic logic, the +Sanskrit may be their equal, it must still be admitted that this last-named +language has no claims to a high value as a practical philological +discipline upon the grounds of its universality as a point of education; +nor will it have. Older than the Greek, it may (or may not) be; more +multiform than the Latin, it may (or may not) be: but equally rich in the +attractions {xi} of an unsurpassed literature, and equally influential as a +standard of imitation, it neither has been nor can be. We may admit all +that is stated by those who admire its epics, or elucidate its philosophy; +we may admire all this and much more besides, but we shall still miss the +great elements of oratory and history, that connect the ancient languages +of Greece and Italy with the thoughts, and feelings, and admiration of +recent Europe. + +The same sort of reasoning applies to the Semitic languages. One element +they have, in their grammatical representation, which gives them a value in +philological philosophy, in the abstract, above all other languages--the +_generality_ of the expression of their structure. This is _symbolic_, and +its advantage is that it exhibits the naturally universal phenomena of +their construction in a universal language. Yet neither this nor their +historical value raises them to the level of the classical languages. + +Now, what has just been written has been written with a view towards a +special inference, and as the preliminary to a practical deduction; and it +would not have been written but for some such ulterior application. If +these languages have so high a disciplinal value, how necessary it is that +the expression of their philological phenomena should be accurate, +scientific, and representative of their true growth and form? How essential +that their grammars should exhibit nothing that may hereafter be unlearned? +_Pace grammaticorum dixerim_, this is not the case. Bad {xii} as is Lindley +Murray in English, Busby and Lilly are worse in Greek and Latin. This is +the comparison of the men on the low rounds of the ladder. What do we find +as we ascend? Is the grammatical science of even men like Mathiae and Zump +_much_ above that of Wallis? Does Buttmann's Greek give so little to be +unlearned as Grimm's German? By any one who has gone far in comparative +philology, the answer will be given in the negative. + +This is not written in the spirit of a destructive criticism. If an opinion +as to the fact is stated without reserve, it is accompanied by an +explanation, and (partially, perhaps) by a justification. It is the +business of a Greek and Latin grammarian to teach Greek and Latin _cito, +tute, ac jucunde_,--_cito_, that is, between the years of twelve and +twenty-four; _tute_, that is, in a way that quantities may be read truly, +and hard passages translated accurately; _jucunde_, that is, as the taste +and memory of the pupil may determine. With this view the grammar must be +_artificial_. Granted. But then it should profess to be so. It should +profess to address the memory only, not the understanding. Above all it +should prefer to leave a point untaught, than to teach it in a way that +must be unlearned. + +In 1840, so little had been done by Englishmen for the English language, +that in acknowledging my great obligations to foreign scholars, I was only +able to speak to what _might be done_ by my own countrymen. Since then, +however, there has been a good {xiii} beginning of what is likely to be +done well. My references to the works of Messrs. Kemble, Garnet, and Guest, +show that my authorities are _now_ as much English as German. And this is +likely to be the case. The details of the syntax, the illustrations drawn +from our provincial dialects, the minute history of individual words, and +the whole system of articulate sounds can, for the English, only be done +safely by an Englishman: or, to speak more generally, can, for any +language, only be dealt with properly by the grammarian whose mother-tongue +is that language. The _Deutsche Grammatik_ of Grimm is the work not of an +age nor of a century, but, like the great history of the Athenian, a +[Greek: ktema eis aei]. It is the magazine from whence all draw their facts +and illustrations. Yet it is only the proper German portion that pretends +to be exhaustive. The Dutch and Scandinavians have each improved the +exhibition of their own respective languages. Monument as is the _Deutsche +Grammatik_ of learning, industry, comprehensiveness, and arrangement, it is +not a book that should be read to the exclusion of others: nor must it be +considered to exhibit the grammar of the Gothic languages, in a form +unsusceptible of improvement. Like all great works, it is more easily +improved than imitated. One is almost unwilling to recur to the old +comparison between Aristotle, who absorbed the labour of his predecessors, +and the Eastern sultans, who kill-off their younger brothers. But such is +the case with Grimm and his fore-runners in philology. Germany, that, in +{xiv} respect to the Reformation, is content to be told that Erasmus laid +the egg which Luther hatched, must also acknowledge that accurate and +systematic scholars of other countries prepared the way for the _Deutsche +Grammatik_,--Ten Kate in Holland; Dowbrowsky, a Slavonian; and Rask, a +Dane. + +Nor are there wanting older works in English that have a value in Gothic +philology. I should be sorry to speak as if, beyond the writers of what may +be called the modern school of philology, there was nothing for the English +grammarian both to read and study. The fragments of Ben Jonson's English +Grammar are worth the entireties of many later writers. The work of Wallis +is eminently logical and precise. The voice of a mere ruler of rules is a +sound to flee from; but the voice of a truly powerful understanding is a +thing to be heard on all matters. It is this which gives to Cobbett and +Priestley, to Horne Tooke as a subtle etymologist, and to Johnson as a +practical lexicographer, a value in literary history, which they never can +have in grammar. It converts unwholesome doctrines into a fertile +discipline of thought. + +The method of the present work is mixed. It is partly historical, and +partly logical. The historical portions exhibit the way in which words and +inflections _have been_ used; the logical, the way in which they _ought to +be_ used. Now I cannot conceal from either my readers or myself the fact +that philological criticism at the present moment is of an essentially {xv} +historical character. It has been by working the historical method that all +the great results both in general and special scholarship have been arrived +at; and it is on historical investigation that the whole _induction_ of +modern philology rests. All beyond is _[`a] priori_ argument; and, +according to many, _[`a] priori_ argument out of place. Now, this gives to +the questions in philology, to questions concerning the phenomena of +concord, government, &c. a subordinate character. It does so, however, +improperly. Logic is in language what it is in reasoning,--a rule and +standard. But in its application to reasoning and to language there is this +difference. Whilst illogical reasoning, and illogical grammar are equally +phenomena of the human mind, even as physical disease is a phenomenon of +the human body, the illogical grammar can rectify itself by its mere +continuance, propagation, and repetition. In this respect the phenomena of +language stand apart from the other phenomena of either mind or organized +matter. No amount of false argument can make a fallacy other than a +fallacy. No amount of frequency can make physical disease other than a +predisposing cause to physical disorganization. The argument that halts in +its logic, is not on a _par_ with the argument that is sound. Such also is +the case with any bodily organ. No prevalence of sickness can ever evolve +health. Language, however, as long as it preserves the same amount of +intelligibility is always language. Provided it serve as a medium, it does +its proper work; {xvi} and as long as it does this, it is, as far as its +application is concerned, faultless. Now there is a limit in logical +regularity which language is perpetually overstepping; just as there is a +logical limit which the reasoning of common life is perpetually +overstepping, and just as there is a physiological limit which the average +health of men and women may depart from. This limit is investigated by the +historical method; which shows the amount of latitude in which language may +indulge and yet maintain its great essential of intelligibility. Nay, more, +it can show that it sometimes transgresses the limit in so remarkable a +manner, as to induce writers to talk about the _corruption of a language_, +or _the pathology of a language_, with the application of many similar +metaphors. Yet it is very doubtful whether all languages, in all their +stages, are not equally intelligible, and, consequently, equally what they +ought to be, viz., mediums of intercourse between man and man; whilst, in +respect to their growth, it is almost certain that so far from exhibiting +signs of dissolution, they are, on the contrary, like the Tithonus of +mythology, the Strulbrugs of Laputa, or, lastly, such monsters as +Frankenstein, very liable to the causes of death, but utterly unable to +die. Hence, in language, _whatever is, is right_; a fact which, taken by +itself, gives great value to the historical method of inquiry, and leaves +little to the _[`a] priori_ considerations of logic. + +But, on the other hand, there is a limit in logical regularity, which +language _never_ oversteps: and as {xvii} long as this is the case, the +study of the logical standard of what language is in its normal form must +go hand in hand with the study of the processes that deflect it. The +investigation of the irregularities of language--and be it remembered that +almost all change implies original irregularity--is analogous to the +investigation of fallacies in logic. It is the comparison between the rule +and the practice, with this difference, that in language the practice can +change the rule, which in logic is impossible. I am sure that these remarks +are necessary in order to anticipate objections that may be raised against +certain statements laid down in the syntax. I often write as if I took no +account of the historical evidence, in respect to particular uses of +particular words. I do so, not because I undervalue that department of +philology, but because it is out of place. To show that one or more +writers, generally correct, have used a particular expression is to show +that they speak, in a few instances, as the vulgar speak in many. To show +that the vulgar use one expression for another is to show that two ideas +are sufficiently allied to be expressed in the same manner: in other words, +the historical fact is accompanied by a logical explanation; and the +historical deviation is measured by a logical standard. + +I am not desirous of sacrificing a truth to an antithesis, but so certain +is language to change from logical accuracy to logical licence, and, at the +same time, so certain is language, when so changed, to be {xviii} just as +intelligible as before, that I venture upon asserting that, not only +_whatever is, is right_, but also, that in many cases, _whatever was, was +wrong_. There is an antagonism, between logic and practice; and the +phenomena on both sides must be studied. + + * * * * * + + +{xix} + +CONTENTS. + + PART I. + + GENERAL ETHNOLOGICAL RELATIONS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. + + CHAPTER I. + + GERMANIC ORIGIN OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE--DATE. + + SECTION PAGE + + 1. English not originally British 1 + 2. Germanic in origin 2 + 3-10. Accredited details of the different immigrations from Germany + into Britain 2-4 + 10-12. Accredited relations of the Jutes, Angles, and Saxons to each + other as Germans 4 + 13. Criticism of evidence 5 + Extract from Mr. Kemble 6 + 14. Inference 9 + + CHAPTER II. + + GERMANIC ORIGIN OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE--THE IMMIGRANT TRIBES + AND THEIR RELATION TO EACH OTHER. + + 15-20. The Jute immigration doubtful 10-12 + 22. Difficulties in identifying the Saxons 13 + 23. Difficulties in identifying the Angles 13 + 25-29. Populations with the greatest _[`a] priori_ likelihood of having + immigrated 14, 15 + 26. Menapians 15 + 27. Batavians 15 + 28. Frisians 15 + 29. Chauci 15 + 30. Inference 16 + {xx} + 31-34. Saxons and Nordalbingians 16, 17 + 35-50. Populations, whereof the continental relation help us in fixing + the original country of the Angles and Saxons 17-21 + 36. Germans of the Middle Rhine 17 + Franks 18 + Salians 18 + Chamavi 18 + 37. Thuringians 18 + 38. Catti 18 + 39. Geographical conditions of the Saxon Area 18 + 40. Its _Eastern_ limit 19 + 41-50. Slavonian frontier 20, 21 + 41. " Polabi 20 + 42. " Wagrians 20 + 43. " Obotriti 20 + 44. " Lini 20 + 45. " Warnabi 21 + 46. " Morizani 21 + 47. " Doxani 21 + 48. " Hevelli 21 + 49. " Slavonians of Altmark 21 + 50. " Sorabians 21 + 51. Saxon area 21 + + CHAPTER III. + + OF THE DIALECTS OF THE SAXON AREA AND OF THE SO-CALLED OLD + SAXON. + + 52, 53. Extent and frontier 23 + 54-62. Anglo-Saxon and Old Saxon 23-25 + 63. Old-Saxon _data_ 25 + 64. Specimen 26 + + CHAPTER IV. + + AFFINITIES OF THE ENGLISH WITH THE LANGUAGES OF GERMANY AND + SCANDINAVIA. + + 65. _General_ affinities of the English language 28 + 67. The term _Gothic_ 28 + 69. _Scandinavian_ branch 28 + 70. _Teutonic_ branch 31 + {xxi} + 71. Moeso-Gothic 31 + 73. Origin of the Moeso-Goths 32 + 76. Name not Germanic 33 + 77. Old High German 35 + 78. Low Germanic division 36 + 79. Frisian 36 + 81. Old Frisian 37 + 82. Platt-Deutsch 38 + 83. Anglo-Saxon and Icelandic compound 38 + 84. Scandinavian article 40 + 88. Scandinavian verb 44 + 91. Declension in _-n_ 45 + 92. Difference between languages of the same division 46 + 93. Weak and strong nouns 46 + Moeso-Gothic inflections 47 + 94. Old Frisian and Anglo-Saxon 50 + 98. The term _German_ 56 + 99. The term _Dutch_ 57 + 100. The term _Teutonic_ 58 + 101. The term _Anglo-Saxon_ 59 + 102. _Icelandic_, Old Norse 59 + + CHAPTER V. + + ANALYSIS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE--GERMANIC ELEMENTS. + + 106. The _Angles_ 62 + 109. Extract from Tacitus 63 + " Ptolemy 63 + 110. Extracts connecting them with the inhabitants of the Cimbric + Chersonesus 64 + 111. The district called Angle 65 + 113. Inferences and remarks 65 + 114. What were the _Langobardi_ with whom the Angles were connected + by Tacitus? 66 + 115. What were the Suevi, &c. 66 + 116. What were the Werini, &c. 67 + 117. What were the Thuringians, &c. 67 + 121. Difficulties respecting the Angles 68 + 123-128. Patronymic forms, and the criticism based on them 68-72 + 129-131. Probably German immigrants _not_ Anglo-Saxon 72, 73 + + {xxii} + CHAPTER VI. + + THE CELTIC STOCK OF LANGUAGES, AND THEIR RELATIONS TO THE + ENGLISH. + + 132. Cambrian Celtic 74 + 133. Gaelic Celtic 77 + 136. Structure of Celtic tongues 79-83 + 138. The Celtic of Gaul 84 + 139. The Pictish 84 + + CHAPTER VII. + + THE ANGLO-NORMAN AND THE LANGUAGES OF THE CLASSICAL STOCK. + + 140. The Classical languages 86 + 141. Extension of the Roman language 86 + 142. The divisions 87 + Specimen of the Romanese 88 + Specimen of the Wallachian 88 + 143. French dialects 89 + Oath of Ludwig 90 + 144. Norman-French 91 + + CHAPTER VIII. + + THE POSITION OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE AS INDO-EUROPEAN. + + 147. The term _Indo-European_ 94 + 148. Is the Celtic Indo-European? 95 + + PART II. + + HISTORY AND ANALYSIS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. + + CHAPTER I. + + HISTORICAL AND LOGICAL ELEMENTS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. + + 149. Celtic elements 97 + 150. Latin of the First Period 98 + 151. Anglo-Saxon 98 + 152. Danish or Norse 98 + 153. Roman of the Second Period 100 + {xxiii} + 154. Anglo-Norman 101 + 155. Indirect Scandinavian 101 + 156. Latin of the Third Period 101 + 157. Greek elements 102 + 158. Classical elements 102 + 159. Latin words 103 + 160. Greek elements 104 + 161, 162. Miscellaneous elements 105 + 163, 164. Direct and ultimate origin of words 106, 107 + 165. Distinction 107 + 166-168. Words of foreign simulating a vernacular origin 107-109 + 169-171. Hybridism 109, 110 + 172. Incompletion of radical 110 + 173. Historical and logical analysis 111 + + CHAPTER II. + + THE RELATION OF THE ENGLISH TO THE ANGLO-SAXON AND THE STAGES + OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. + + 174. Ancient and modern languages 112 + 175. English and Anglo-Saxon compared 113 + 176. Semi-Saxon stage 117 + 177-179. Old English stage 119, 122 + 180. Middle English 122 + 181. Present tendencies of the English 123 + 182. Speculative question 123 + + CHAPTER III. + + THE LOWLAND SCOTCH. + + 183-188. Lowland Scotch 124-127 + 189. Extracts 127 + 190. Points of difference with the English 130 + + CHAPTER IV. + + ON CERTAIN UNDETERMINED AND FICTITIOUS LANGUAGES OF GREAT + BRITAIN. + + 191, 192. The Belgae 132-135 + 193. Caledonians, Iberians 135 + 194. Supposed affinities of the Irish 135 + Extract from Plautus 136 + 195. Hypothesis of a Finnic race 139 + + {xxiv} + PART III. + + SOUNDS, LETTERS, PRONUNCIATION, AND SPELLING. + + CHAPTER I. + + GENERAL NATURE OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS. + + 196. Preliminary remarks 141 + 197. Vowels and consonants 143 + 198. Divisions of articulate sounds 143 + 199. Explanation of terms 143 + _Sharp_ and _flat_ 143 + _Continuous_ and _explosive_ 144 + 200. General statements 144 + 201. _H_ no articulation 144 + + CHAPTER II. + + SYSTEM OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS. + + 202. System of vowels 145 + _['e]_ ferm['e], ['o] _chiuso_, _ue_ German + 145 + 203. System of mutes 145 + Lenes and aspirates 146 + 204. Affinities of the liquids 147 + 205. Diphthongs 147 + 206. Compound sibilants 148 + 207. _Ng_ 148 + 208-210. Further explanation of terms 148-150 + 211. System of vowels 150 + 212. System of mutes 150 + 213. Varieties 150 + 214. Connection in phonetics 151 + + CHAPTER III. + + ON CERTAIN COMBINATIONS OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS. + + 215. Unpronounceable combinations 152 + 216. Unstable combinations 153 + 217. Effect of _y_ 153 + 218, 219. Evolution of new sounds 153, 154 + 220. Value of a sufficient system of sounds 154 + {xxv} + 221. Double consonants rare 154 + 222. Reduplications of consonants rare 155 + 223. True aspirates rare 155 + + CHAPTER IV. + + EUPHONY; THE PERMUTATION AND TRANSITION OF LETTERS. + + 224. Euphonic change exhibited 157 + 225. The _rationale_ of it 157 + 226. The combinations _-mt_, _-nt_ 158 + 227. The combination _-pth_ 158 + 228. Accommodation of vowels 158 + 229. Permutation of letters 159 + 230. Transition of letters 160 + + CHAPTER V. + + ON THE FORMATION OF SYLLABLES. + + 231. Distribution of consonants between two syllables 161 + + CHAPTER VI. + + ON QUANTITY. + + 232. _Long_ and _short_ 164 + 233. How far coincident with _independent_ and _dependent_ 164 + 234. Length of vowels and length of syllables 165 + + CHAPTER VII. + + ON ACCENT. + + 235. Accent 167 + 236. How far accent always on the root 168 + 237. Verbal accent and logical accent 168 + 238. Effect of accent on orthography 169 + 239. Accent and quantity _not_ the same 170 + + CHAPTER VIII. + + THE PRINCIPLES OF ORTHOEPY. + + 240. Meaning of the word _orthoepy_ 172 + 241. Classification of errors in pronunciation 172 + 242-244. Causes of erroneous enunciation 172-175 + {xxvi} + 245. Appreciation of standards of orthoepy 175 + 246. Principles of critical orthoepy 176 + + CHAPTER IX. + + GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF ORTHOGRAPHY. + + 247. Province of orthography 178 + 248. Imperfections of alphabets 178 + 249. Applications of alphabets 180 + 250. Changes of sound, and original false spelling 181 + 251. Theory of a perfect alphabet 181 + 252. Sounds and letters in English 182 + 253. Certain conventional modes of spelling 187 + 254. The inconvenience of them 189 + 255. Criticism upon the details of the English orthography 189-200 + + CHAPTER X. + + HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE ENGLISH ALPHABET. + + 256. Bearings of the question 200 + 257. Phoenician Period 200 + 258, 259. Greek Period 201-203 + 260-262. Latin Period 203-205 + 263. The Moeso-Gothic alphabet 205 + 264. The Anglo-Saxon alphabet 205 + 265. The Anglo-Norman Period 207 + 266. Extract from the Ormulum 208 + 267. The _Runes_ 209 + 268. The order of the alphabet 210 + 269. Parallel and equivalent orthographies 213 + + PART IV. + + ETYMOLOGY. + + CHAPTER I. + + ON THE PROVINCE OF ETYMOLOGY. + + 270. Meaning of the term etymology 214 + + {xxvii} + CHAPTER II. + + ON GENDER. + + 271. Latin genders 217 + 272. Words like _he-goat_ 217 + 273. Words like _genitrix_ 217 + 274. Words like _domina_ 218 + 275. Sex 219 + 276. True Genders in English 219 + 277. Neuters in _-t_ 220 + 278. Personification 220 + 279. True and apparent genders 221 + + CHAPTER III. + + THE NUMBERS. + + 280, 281. Dual number 225 + 282-284. Plural in _-s_ 226-230 + 285. The form in _child-r-en_ 230 + 286. The form in _-en_ 232 + 287. _Men_, _feet_, &c. 232 + 288. _Brethren_, &c. 232 + + CHAPTER IV. + + ON THE CASES. + + 289, 290. Meaning of word _case_ 234 + 291. Cases in English 237 + 292, 293. Determination of cases 239 + 294, 295. Analysis of cases 241 + 296. Case in _-s_ 241 + + CHAPTER V. + + THE PERSONAL PRONOUNS. + + 297. True personal pronoun 243 + 298. _We_ and _me_ 244 + + CHAPTER VI. + + ON THE TRUE REFLECTIVE PRONOUN IN THE GOTHIC LANGUAGES AND ON + ITS ABSENCE IN THE ENGLISH. + + 299. The Latin _se_, _sui_ 247 + + {xxviii} + CHAPTER VII. + + THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS, ETC. + + 300. _He_, _she_, _it_, _this_, _that_, _the_ 249 + 301. _These_ 251 + 302. _Those_ 253 + + CHAPTER VIII. + + THE RELATIVE, INTERROGATIVE, AND CERTAIN OTHER PRONOUNS. + + 303. _Who_, _what_, &c. 255 + 304. Indo-European forms 255 + 305. Miscellaneous observations 256 + + CHAPTER IX. + + ON CERTAIN FORMS IN -ER. + + 306, 307. _Eith-er_, _ov-er_, _und-er_, _bett-er_ 260, 261 + 308. Illustration from the Laplandic 261 + 309. Idea of alternative 262 + + CHAPTER X. + + THE COMPARATIVE DEGREE. + + 310. Forms in _-tara_ and _-[^i]yas_ 263 + 311. Change from _-s_ to _-r_ 263 + 312. Moeso-Gothic comparative 264 + 313. Comparison of adverbs 264 + 314. _Elder_ 265 + 315. _Rather_ 265 + 316. Excess of expression 266 + 317. _Better_, &c. 266 + 318. Sequence in logic 266 + 319-325. _Worse_, &c. 267-270 + + CHAPTER XI. + + ON THE SUPERLATIVE DEGREE. + + 326. Different modes of expression 271 + 327. The termination _-st_ 272 + + {xxix} + CHAPTER XII. + + THE CARDINAL NUMBERS. + + 328, 329. Their ethnological value 273 + Variations in form 274 + 10+2 and 10x2 275 + 330. Limits to the inflection of the numeral 276 + + CHAPTER XIII. + + ON THE ORDINAL NUMBERS. + + 331. _First_ 277 + 332. _Second_ 277 + 333. _Third_, _fourth_, &c. 278 + 334, 335. Ordinal and superlative forms 278-280 + + CHAPTER XIV. + + THE ARTICLES. + + 336. _A_, _the_, _no_ 281 + + CHAPTER XV. + + DIMINUTIVES, AUGMENTATIVES, AND PATRONYMICS. + + 337, 338. Diminutives 283 + 339. Augmentatives 285 + 340. Patronymics 286 + + CHAPTER XVI. + + GENTILE FORMS. + + 341. _Wales_ 288 + + CHAPTER XVII. + + ON THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE NOUN AND VERB, AND ON THE + INFLECTION OF THE INFINITIVE MOOD. + + 342-344. Substantival character of verbs 289 + 345, 346. Declension of the infinitive 290 + + CHAPTER XVIII. + + ON DERIVED VERBS. + + 347. _Rise_, _raise_, &c. 292 + + {xxx} + CHAPTER XIX. + + ON THE PERSONS. + + 348-351. Persons in English 294-298 + 352. Person in _-t_, _-art_, &c. 298 + 353. Forms like _spakest_, _sungest_, &c. 299 + 354. Plurals in _-s_ 299 + + CHAPTER XX. + + ON THE NUMBERS OF VERBS. + + 355. Personal signs of numbers 300 + _Run_, _ran_ 301 + + CHAPTER XXI. + + ON MOODS. + + 356. The infinitive mood 302 + 357. The imperative mood 302 + 358. The subjunctive mood 302 + + CHAPTER XXII. + + OF TENSES IN GENERAL. + + 359. General nature of tenses 303 + 360. Latin preterites 304 + 361. Moeso-Gothic perfects 304 + Reduplication 305 + 362. Strong and weak verbs 305 + + CHAPTER XXIII. + + THE STRONG TENSES. + + 363. _Sang_, _sung_ 307 + 364-376. Classification of strong verbs 308-316 + + CHAPTER XXIV. + + THE WEAK TENSES. + + 377. The weak inflection 317 + 378. First division 318 + 379. Second division 318 + {xxxi} + 380. Third division 319 + 381. Preterites in _-ed_ and _-t_ 319 + 382. Preterites like _made_, _had_ 321-327 + _Would_, _should_ 322 + _Aught_ 322 + _Durst_ 322 + _Must_ 323 + _Wist_ 324 + _Do_ 325 + _Mind_ 325 + _Yode_ 327 + + CHAPTER XXV. + + ON CONJUGATIONS. + + 383. So-called irregularities 328 + 384. Principles of criticism 329 + Coincidence of form 329 + Coincidence of distribution 329 + Coincidence of order 329 + 385. Strong verbs once weak 332 + 386. Division of verbs into _strong_ and _weak_ natural 333 + 387. Obsolete forms 334 + 388. Double forms 334 + + CHAPTER XXVI. + + DEFECTIVENESS AND IRREGULARITY. + + 389. Difference between defectiveness and irregularity 335 + Vital and obsolete processes 336 + Processes of necessity 337 + Ordinary processes 338 + Positive processes 338 + Processes of confusion 339 + 390. _Could_ 339 + 391. _Quoth_ 340 + + CHAPTER XXVII. + + THE IMPERSONAL VERBS. + + 392-394. _Meseems_, _methinks_, _me listeth_ 342 + + {xxxii} + CHAPTER XXVIII. + + THE VERB SUBSTANTIVE. + + 395. The verb substantive defective 344 + 396. _Was_ 344 + 397. _Be_ 344 + 398, 399. Future power of _be_ 345 + 400. _Am_ 346 + _Worth_ 347 + + CHAPTER XXIX. + + THE PRESENT PARTICIPLE. + + 401. The form in _-ing_ 348 + 402. Substantival power of participle 349 + 403. Taylor's theory 349 + + CHAPTER XXX. + + THE PAST PARTICIPLE. + + 404-406. Similarity to the preterite 351 + 407. _Forlorn_, _frore_ 352 + 408. The form in _-ed_, _-d_, or _-t_ 352 + 409. The _y-_ in _y-cleped_, &c. 353 + + CHAPTER XXXI. + + ON COMPOSITION. + + 410-414. Definition of composition 355-357 + 415-417. Parity of accent 358 + 418. Obscure compounds 361 + 419. Exceptions 362 + 420. _Peacock_, _peahen_, &c. 364 + 421. Third element in compound words 365 + 422. Improper compounds 365 + 423. Decomposites 365 + 424. Combinations 366 + + CHAPTER XXXII. + + ON DERIVATION AND INFLECTION. + + 425. Derivation 367 + 426. Classification of derived words 368 + 427. Words like _['a]bsent_ and _abs['e]nt_, &c. + 369 + {xxxiii} + 428. Words like _churl_, _tail_, &c. 370 + 429. Forms like _tip_ and _top_, &c. 370 + 430. Obscure derivatives 370 + + CHAPTER XXXIII. + + ADVERBS. + + 431. Classification of adverbs 371 + 432. Adverbs of deflection 372 + 433. Words like _darkling_ 373 + 434. Words like _brightly_ 374 + + CHAPTER XXXIV. + + ON CERTAIN ADVERBS OF PLACE. + + 435-439. _Here_, _hither_, _hence_ 374 + 440. _Yonder_ 375 + _Anon_ 375 + + CHAPTER XXXV. + + ON WHEN, THEN, AND THAN. + + 441. Origin of the words 377 + + CHAPTER XXXVI. + + ON PREPOSITIONS, ETC. + + 442. Prepositions 378 + 443. Conjunctions 378 + 444. _Yes_ and _no_ 379 + 445. Particles 379 + + CHAPTER XXXVII. + + ON THE GRAMMATICAL POSITION OF THE WORDS _MINE_ AND _THINE_. + + 446. Peculiarities of inflection of pronouns 380 + 447. Powers of the genitive case 381 + 448. Ideas of possession and partition 382 + 449. Adjectival expressions 382 + 450. Evolution of cases 383 + 451. Idea of possession 383 + 452. Idea of partition 383 + {xxxiv} + 453. _A posteriori_ argument 384 + 454-458. Analogy of _mei_ and [Greek: emou] 384 + 459. Etymological evidence 386 + 460. Syntactic evidence 387 + 461. Value of the evidence of certain constructions 387 + 462, 463. Double adjectival form 388 + + CHAPTER XXXVIII. + + ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE WEAK PRAETERITE. + + 464. Forms like _salb-[^o]d[^e]dum_ 390 + 465, 466. The Slavonic praeterite 391 + + PART V. + + SYNTAX. + + CHAPTER I. + + ON SYNTAX IN GENERAL. + + 467. The term _syntax_ 392 + 468. What is _not_ syntax 392 + 469. What _is_ syntax 394 + 470. Pure syntax 395 + 471, 472. Mixed syntax 395 + 473. Figures of speech 395 + 474. Personification 395 + 475. Ellipsis 395 + 476. Pleonasm 395 + 477. Zeugma 397 + 478. [Greek: Pros to semainomenon] 397 + 479. Apposition 398 + 480. Collective nouns 398 + 481, 482. Complex forms 399 + 483. Convertibility 399 + 484. Etymological convertibility 400 + 485. Syntactic convertibility 400 + 486. Adjectives used as substantives 400 + {xxxv} + 487. Uninflected parts of speech used as such 400 + 488. Convertibility common in English 401 + + CHAPTER II. + + SYNTAX OF SUBSTANTIVES. + + 489. Convertibility 402 + 490. Ellipsis 403 + 491. Proper names 403 + + CHAPTER III. + + SYNTAX OF ADJECTIVES. + + 492. Pleonasm 404 + 493. Collocation 404 + 494. Government 404 + 495. _More fruitful_, &c. 405 + 496. _The better of the two_ 405 + 497. Syntax of adjectives simple 406 + + CHAPTER IV. + + SYNTAX OF PRONOUNS. + + 498, 499. Syntax of pronouns important 407 + 500, 501. Pleonasm 407 + + CHAPTER V. + + THE TRUE PERSONAL PRONOUNS. + + 502. _Pronomen reverentiae_ 409 + 503. _You_ and _ye_ 409 + 504. _Dativus ethicus_ 409 + 505. Reflected personal pronouns 410 + 506. Reflective neuter verbs 410 + 507. Equivocal reflectives 411 + + CHAPTER VI. + + ON THE SYNTAX OF THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS, AND ON THE + PRONOUNS OF THE THIRD PERSON. + + 508. True demonstrative pronoun 412 + 509. _His mother_, _her father_ 412 + {xxxvi} + 510, 511. Use of _its_ 412 + 512. _Take them things away_ 413 + 513, 514. _Hic_ and _ille_, _this_ and _that_ 413 + + CHAPTER VII. + + ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORD _SELF_. + + 515. Government, apposition, composition 416 + 516. _Her-self_, _itself_ 416 + 517. _Self_ and _one_ 417 + 518, 519. Inflection of _self_ 418 + + CHAPTER VIII. + + ON THE POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. + + 520, 521. _My_ and _mine_, &c. 419 + + CHAPTER IX. + + THE RELATIVE PRONOUNS. + + 522-524. _That_, _which_, _what_ 422 + 525. _The man_ as _rides to market_ 423 + 526, 527. Plural use of _whose_ 423 + 528, 529. Concord of relative and antecedent 423 + 530. Ellipsis of the relative 424 + 531. Relative equivalent to demonstrative pronoun 425 + Demonstrative equivalent to substantive 425 + 532. Omission of antecedent 426 + 533. [Greek: Chromai bibliois hois echo] 426 + 534. Relatives with complex antecedents 427 + + CHAPTER X. + + ON THE INTERROGATIVE PRONOUNS. + + 535. Direct and oblique interrogations 428 + 536-539. _Whom do they say that it is?_ 428-430 + + CHAPTER XI. + + THE RECIPROCAL CONSTRUCTION. + + 540, 541. Structure of reciprocal expressions 431 + + {xxxvii} + CHAPTER XII. + + THE INDETERMINATE PRONOUNS. + + 542. _On dit_=_one says_ 433 + 543-546. _It_ and _there_ 433 + _Es sind_ 434 + + CHAPTER XIII. + + THE ARTICLES. + + 547. Repetition of article 435 + + CHAPTER XIV. + + THE NUMERALS. + + 548. _The thousand-and-first_ 436 + 549. _The first two_ and _two first_ 436 + + CHAPTER XV. + + ON VERBS IN GENERAL. + + 550. Transitive verbs 437 + 551. Auxiliary verbs 438 + 552. Verb substantive 438 + + CHAPTER XVI. + + THE CONCORD OF VERBS. + + 553-556. Concord of person 439 + 557. Plural subjects with singular predicates 443 + Singular subjects with plural predicates 443 + + CHAPTER XVII. + + ON THE GOVERNMENT OF VERBS. + + 558, 559. _Objective_ and _modal_ government 444 + 560. Appositional construction 445 + 561. Verb and genitive case 448 + 562. Verb and accusative case 448 + 563. The partitive construction 448 + 564. _I believe it to be him_ 448 + 565. [Greek: phemi einai despotes] 449 + 566. _It is believed to be_ 449 + + {xxxviii} + CHAPTER XVIII. + + ON THE PARTICIPLES. + + 567. _Dying-day_ 451 + 568. _I am beaten_ 451 + + CHAPTER XIX. + + ON THE MOODS. + + 569. The infinitive mood 452 + 570. Objective construction 452 + 570. Gerundial construction 453 + 571. Peculiarities of imperatives 454 + 572. Syntax of subjunctives 454 + + CHAPTER XX. + + ON THE TENSES. + + 573. Present form habitual 455 + 574. Praeterite form aorist 455 + + CHAPTER XXI. + + SYNTAX OF THE PERSONS OF VERBS. + + 575, 576. _I, or he am (is) wrong_ 456 + + CHAPTER XXII. + + ON THE VOICES OF VERBS. + + 577. The word _hight_ 458 + + CHAPTER XXIII. + + ON THE AUXILIARY VERBS. + + 578. Classification 459 + 579. Time and tense 461 + Present 461 + Aorist 461 + Future 461 + Imperfect 462 + Perfect 462 + {xxxix} + Pluperfect 462 + Future present 462 + Future praeterite 462 + Emphatic tenses 463 + Predictive future 463 + Promissive future 463 + 580. _Historic_ present 463 + 581. Use of perfect for present 464 + 582, 583. Varieties of tense 465 + Continuance 465 + Habit 466 + 584. Inference of continuance 466 + Inference of contrast 467 + 585. _Have_ with a participle 467 + 586. _I am to speak_ 469 + 587. _I am to blame_ 469 + 588. _Shall_ and _will_ 469 + 589. Archdeacon Hare's theory 470 + 590. Mr. De Morgan's theory 472 + 591. _I am beaten_ 474 + 592, 593. Present use of _ought, &c._ 475 + + CHAPTER XXIV. + + THE SYNTAX OF ADVERBS. + + 594. The syntax of adverbs simple 477 + 595. _Full_ for _fully, &c._ 477 + 596. The termination _-ly_ 477 + 597. _To sleep the sleep of the righteous_ 478 + 598. From _whence, &c._ 478 + + CHAPTER XXV. + + ON PREPOSITIONS. + + 599. All prepositions govern cases 479 + 600, 601. None, in English, govern genitives 479 + 602. Dative case after prepositions 481 + 603. From _to die_ 481 + 604. For _to go_ 481 + 605. No prepositions in composition 481 + + {xl} + CHAPTER XXVI. + + ON CONJUNCTIONS. + + 606. Syntax of conjunctions 482 + 607. Convertibility of conjunctions 482 + 608. Connexion of prepositions 483 + 609, 610. Relatives and conjunctions 484 + 611. Government of mood 485 + 612. Conditional propositions 486 + 613. Variations of meaning 486 + 614. _If_ and _since_ 487 + 615. Use of that 487 + 616. Succession of tenses 488 + Succession of moods 489 + 617. Greek constructions 489 + 618. _Be_ for _may be_ 491 + 619. Disjunctives 491 + 620-623. Either, neither 492 + + CHAPTER XXVII. + + THE SYNTAX OF THE NEGATIVE. + + 624. Position of the negative 495 + 625. Distribution of the negative 495 + 626. Double negative 496 + 627. Questions of appeal 496 + 628. Extract from Sir Thomas More 496 + + CHAPTER XXVIII. + + OF THE CASE ABSOLUTE. + + 629. _He excepted, him excepted_ + 498 + + . . . . . . + + PART VI. + + PROSODY. + + 630-632. Metre 499 + 633. Classical metres measured by quantities 500 + 634. English metre measured by accents 500 + {xli} + 635. Alliteration 500 + 636. Rhyme 501 + 637. Definition of Rhyme 503 + 638. Measures 503 + 639. Dissyllabic and trisyllabic 503 + 640. Dissyllabic measures 504 + 641. Trisyllabic measures 504 + 642. Measures different from feet 505 + 643. Couplets, stanzas, &c. 506 + 644, 645. Names of elementary metres 507, 508 + 646. Scansion 509 + 647. Symmetrical metres 509 + 648. Unsymmetrical metres 510 + 649. Measures of _one_ and of _four_ syllables 510 + 650. Contrast between English words and English metre 510 + 651-653. The classical metres as read by Englishmen 511, 512 + 654-657. Reasons against the classical nomenclature as applied to + English metres 513-515 + 658-661. The classical metres metrical to English readers--why + 515-517 + 662. Symmetrical metres 517 + 663. Unsymmetrical metres 517 + 664. Classical metres unsymmetrical 518 + 665-667. Conversion of English into classical metres 519, 520 + 668, 669. Caesura 520, 521 + 670-672. English hexameters, &c. 522-526 + 673. Convertible metres 526 + 674. Metrical and grammatical combinations 527 + 675. Rhythm 528 + 676, 677. Rhyme--its parts 529 + + . . . . . . + + PART VII. + + THE DIALECTS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. + + 678. Bearing of the investigation 531 + 679. Structural and _ethnological_ views 531 + 680-682. Causes that effect change 532 + 683, 684. Preliminary notices 533 + 685. Philological preliminaries 533 + 686, 687. Present provincial dialects 534-540 + 688-691. Caution 540-544 + {xlii} + 692-696. Districts north of the Humber 545-552 + 697. South Lancashire 552 + 698. Shropshire, &c. 553 + 699. East Derbyshire, &c. 553 + 700. Norfolk and Suffolk 554 + 701. Leicestershire, &c. 555 + 702. Origin of the present written language 555 + 703. Dialects of the Lower Thames 556 + 704. Kent--Frisian theory 557 + 705. Sussex, &c. 559 + 706. Supposed East Anglian and Saxon frontier 560 + 707. Dialects of remaining counties 560 + 708. Objections 561 + 709. Dialect of Gower 561 + 710. ---- the Barony of Forth 563 + 711. Americanisms 565 + 712. Extract from a paper of Mr. Watts 566 + 713. Gypsy language, &c. 572 + 714. _Talkee-talkee_ 573 + 715, 716. Varieties of the Anglo-Norman 574 + 717-719. Extracts from Mr. Kemble 575-580 + + PRAXIS 581 + + * * * * * + + +{1} + +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 original language of any of the British +Islands altogether or 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, Scotch Gaelic in the Highlands of +Scotland, and Irish Gaelic in Ireland. Hence, the English that is now +spoken was once as foreign to our country as it is at present to the East +Indies; and it is no more our primitive vernacular tongue, than it is the +primitive vernacular tongue for North America, Jamaica, or Australia. Like +the English of Sydney, or the English of Pennsylvania, the English of Great +Britain spread itself at the expense of some earlier and more aboriginal +language, which it displaced and superseded. {2} + +s. 2. The next point involves 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 known, as well +as the different localities upon which they descended. These were as +follows:-- + +s. 4. _First settlement of invaders from Germany._--The account of this +gives us the year 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. + +s. 5. _Second settlement of invaders from Germany._--In the year 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 {3} was Ella. They established the kingdom of the South Saxons +(Sussex); 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 Northern Germany. + +s. 6. _Third settlement of invaders from Germany._--In the year 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); 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 +Northern Germany. + +s. 7. _Fourth settlement of invaders from Germany._--A.D. 530, certain +Saxons landed in Essex, so that the county of Essex was the fourth district +where the original British was superseded by the mother-tongue of the +present English, introduced from Northern Germany. + +s. 8. _Fifth settlement of invaders from Germany._--These were _Angles_ in +Norfolk and Suffolk. This settlement, of which the precise date is not +known, took place during the reign of Cerdic in Wessex. 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_. + +s. 9. _Sixth settlement of invaders from Germany._--In the year 547 +invaders from Northern Germany made the sixth permanent settlement in +Britain. The south-eastern 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. 10. It would be satisfactory if these details rested upon cotemporary +evidence; in which case the next question would {4} be that of the +relations of the immigrant tribes to each other _as Germans_, _i.e._ the +extent to which the Jute differed from (or agreed with) the Angle, or the +Saxon, and the relations of the Angle and the Saxon to each other. Did they +speak different languages?--different dialects of a common tongue!--or +dialects absolutely identical? Did they belong to the same or to different +confederations? Was one polity common to all? Were the civilizations +similar? + +Questions like these being answered, and a certain amount of mutual +difference being ascertained, it would then stand over to inquire whether +any traces of this original difference were still to be found in the modern +English. Have any provincial dialects characteristics which are Jute rather +than Angle? or Angle rather than Saxon? + +It is clear that the second of these questions is involved in the answer +given to the first. + +s. 11. _The accredited relations of the Jutes, Angles, and Saxons to each +other as Germans._--These are as follows:-- + +1. That the geographical locality of the Jutes was the Peninsula of +Jutland. + +2. That that of Angles, was the present Dutchy of Sleswick; so that they +were the southern neighbours of the Jutes. + +3. That that of the Saxons was a small tract north of the Elbe, and some +distinct point--more or less extensive--between the Elbe and Rhine. + +4. That, although there were, probably, dialectal differences between the +languages, the speech of all the three tribes was mutually intelligible. + +s. 12. Assuming, then, the accuracy of our historical facts, the inference +is, that, without expecting to find any very prominent and characteristic +differences between the different inhabitants of England arising out of the +original differences between the Germanic immigrants, we are to look for +what few there are in the following quarters-- + +1. For the characteristic _differentiae_ of the Jutes, in Kent, part of +Sussex, and the Isle of Wight. + +2. For those of the Saxons in Sussex, Essex, Hants (Wessex), and Middlesex. +{5} + +3. For those of the Angles in Norfolk, Suffolk, Yorkshire, Durham, and +Northumberland. + +Or, changing the expression:-- + +1. The _differentiae_ of the people of Kent, part of Sussex, and the Isle +of Wight (if any), are to be explained by the _differentiae_ of the +original Jute immigrants-- + +2. Those of the rest of Sussex, Wessex, Essex, and Middlesex, by those of +the Saxons-- + +3. Those of the people of Norfolk, &c., by those of the Angles. + +Such is our reasoning, and such a sketch of our philological +researches--assuming that the opinions just exhibited, concerning the +dates, conductors, localities, and order, are absolute and unimpeachable +historical facts. + +s. 13. _Criticism of the aforesaid details._--As a preliminary to this part +of the subject, the present writer takes occasion to state once for all, +that nearly the whole of the following criticism is not his own (except, of +course, so far as he adopts it--which he does), but Mr. Kemble's, and that +it forms the introduction to his valuable work on the Saxons in England. + +1. _The evidence to the details just given, is not historical, but +traditional._--_a._ Bede, from whom it is chiefly taken, wrote more than +300 years after the supposed event, _i.e._, the landing of Hengist and +Horsa, in A.D. 449. + +_b._ The nearest contemporary author is Gildas, and _he_ lived at least 100 +years after it. + +2. _The account of Hengist's and Horsa's landing, has elements which are +fictional rather than historical_--_a._ Thus "when we find Hengist and +Horsa approaching the coasts of Kent in three keels, and Aelli effecting a +landing in Sussex with the same number, we are reminded of the Gothic +tradition which carries a migration of Ostrogoths, Visigoths, and Gepidae, +also in three vessels, to the mouths of the Vistula." + +_b._ The murder of the British chieftains by Hengist is told _totidem +verbis_, by Widukind, and others of the Old Saxons in Thuringia. + +_c._ Geoffry of Monmouth relates also, how "Hengist obtained from the +Britons as much land as could be enclosed {6} 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 lap-full 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." + +3. _There is direct evidence in favour of there having been German tribes +in England anterior to_ A.D. 447.--_a._ At the close of the Marcomannic +war, Marcus Antoninus transplanted a number of Germans into Britain.--Dio +Cassius, lxxi. lxiii. + +_b._ Alemannic auxiliaries served along with Roman legions under +Valentinian. + +_c._ The _Notitia utriusque imperii_, of which the latest date is half a +century earlier than the epoch of Hengist, mentions, as an officer of +State, the _Comes littoris Saxonici per Britannias_; his government +extending along the coast from Portsmouth to the Wash. + +I conclude with the following extract:--"We are ignorant what _fasti_ or +even mode of reckoning the revolutions of seasons prevailed in England, +previous to the introduction of Christianity. We know not how any event +before the year 600 was recorded, or to what period the memory of man +extended. There may have been rare annals: there may have been poems: if +such there were they have perished, and have left no trace behind, unless +we are to attribute to them such scanty notices as the Saxon Chronicle adds +to Beda's account. From such sources, however, little could have been +gained of accurate information either as to the real internal state, the +domestic progress, or development of a people. The dry bare entries of the +Chronicles in historical periods may supply the means of judging what sort +of annals were likely to exist before the general introduction of the Roman +alphabet and parchment, while, in all probability, runes supplied the place +of letters, and {7} stones, or the _beech_-wood, from which their name is +derived, of _books_. Again, the traditions embodied in the epic, are +pre-eminently those of kings and princes; they are heroical, devoted to +celebrate the divine or half-divine founders of a race, the fortunes of +their warlike descendants, the manners and mode of life of military +adventurers, not the obscure progress, household peace, and orderly habits +of the humble husband-man. They are full of feasts and fighting, shining +arms and golden goblets: the gods mingle among men almost their equals, +share in the same pursuits, are animated by the same passions of love, and +jealousy, and hatred; or, blending the divine with the mortal nature, +become the founders of races, kingly, because derived from divinity itself. +But one race knows little of another, or its traditions, and cares as +little for them. Alliances or wars alone bring them in contact with one +another, and the terms of intercourse between the races will, for the most +part, determine the character under which foreign heroes shall be admitted +into the national epos, or whether they shall be admitted at all. All +history, then, which is founded in any degree upon epical tradition (and +national history is usually more or less so founded) must be to that extent +imperfect, if not inaccurate; only when corrected by the written references +of contemporaneous authors, can we assign any certainty to its records. + +"Let us apply these observations to the early events of Saxon history: of +Kent, indeed, we have the vague and uncertain notices which I have +mentioned; even more vague and uncertain are those of Sussex and Wessex. Of +the former, we learn that in the year 477, Aelli, with three sons, Cymen, +Wlencing, and Cissa, landed in Sussex; that in the year 485 they defeated +the Welsh, and that in 491 they destroyed the population of Anderida. Not +another word is there about Sussex before the arrival of Augustine, except +a late assertion of the military pre-eminence of Aelli among the Saxon +chieftains. The events of Wessex are somewhat better detailed; we learn +that in 495 two nobles, Cerdic and Cyner['i]c, came to England, and landed +at _Cerdices-ora_, where, on the {8} same day, they fought a battle: that +in 501 they were followed by a noble named Port, who, with his two sons, +Bieda and Maegla, made a forcible landing at Portsmouth: and that in 508, +they gained a great battle over a British king, whom they slew, together +with five thousand of his people. In 514 Stuff and Wihtg['a]r, their +nephews, brought them a reinforcement of three ships; in 519, they again +defeated the Britons, and established the kingdom of Wessex. In 527, a new +victory is recorded; in 530, the Isle of Wight was subdued and given to +Wihtg['a]r; and in 534, Cerdic died, and was succeeded by Cyner['i]c, who +reigned twenty-six years. In 544, Wihtg['a]r died. A victory of Cyner['i]c, +in 552 and 556, and Ceawlin's accession to the throne of Wessex are next +recorded. Wars of the West-Saxon kings are noted in 568, 571, 577, 584. +From 590 to 595, a king of that race, named Ce['o]l, is mentioned: in 591, +we learn the expulsion of Ceawlin from power; in 593, the deaths of +Ceawlin, Cwichelm, and Crida, are mentioned, and in 597, the year of +Augustine's arrival, we learn that Ce['o]lwulf ascended the throne of +Wessex. + +"Meagre as these details are, they far exceed what is related of +Northumberland, Essex, or East-Anglia. In 547, we are told that Ida began +to reign in the first of these kingdoms, and that he was succeeded in 560, +by Aelli: that after a reign of _thirty_ years, he died in 588, and was +succeeded by Aethelr['i]c, who again, in 593, was succeeded by Aethelfrith. +This is all we learn of Northumbria; of Mercia, Essex, East-Anglia, and the +innumerable kingdoms that must have been comprised under these general +appellations, we hear not a single word. + +"If this be all that we can now recover of events, a great number of which +must have fallen within the lives of those to whom Augustine preached, what +credit shall we give to the inconsistent accounts of earlier actions? How +shall we supply the almost total want of information respecting the first +settlements? What explanation have we to give of the alliance between +Jutes, Angles, and Saxon, which preceded the invasions of England? What +knowledge will these records {9} supply of the real number and quality of +the chieftains, the language and blood of the populations who gradually +spread themselves from the Atlantic to the Frith of Forth; of the remains +of Roman cultivation, or the amount of British power with which they had to +contend? of the vicissitudes of good and evil fortune which visited the +independent principalities before they were swallowed up in the kingdoms of +the heptarchy, or the extent of the influence which they retained after the +event! On all these several points we are left entirely in the dark; and +yet these are facts which it most imports us to know, if we would +comprehend the growth of a society which endured for at least 700 years in +England, and formed the foundation of that in which we live."--_The Saxons +in England._ Vol. I, pp. 28-32. + +s. 14. _Inference._--As it is nearly certain, that the year 449 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. + + * * * * * + + +{10} + +CHAPTER II. + +GERMANIC ORIGIN OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.--THE IMMIGRANT TRIBES, AND THEIR +RELATIONS TO EACH OTHER. + +s. 15. By referring to ss. 3-12, it may be seen that out of the numerous +tribes and nations of Germany, _three_ in particular have been considered +as the chief, if not the exclusive, sources of the present English, viz.: +the Angles, the Saxons and the Jutes. + +To criticise the evidence which derives the _English_ in general from the +_Angles_, the particular inhabitants of _Sussex_, _Essex_, _Middlesex_ and +_Wessex_, from the _Saxons_, and the _Anglo-Saxon_ language from the +_Angle_ and _Saxon_ would be superfluous; whilst to doubt the truth of the +main facts which it attests would exhibit an unnecessary and unhealthy +scepticism. That the Angles and Saxons formed at least seven-tenths of the +Germanic invaders may be safely admitted. The _Jute_ element, however, +requires further notice. + +s. 16. The _Jutes_.--Were any of the German immigrants _Jutes_? If so, what +were their relations to the other German tribes? + +_a._ Were there Jutes in England? That there was a Jute element in England +is to be maintained, not upon the _tradition_ that one of the three ships +of Hengist and Horsa was manned by Jutes, but from the following extract +from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle:-- + + "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]tnacynn. + Of Eald-Seaxum comon + E['a]st-Seaxan, and Sudh-Seaxan, and + West-Seaxan. Of Angle comon + {11} + (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. + +Here the words _gyt haet I['u]tnacynn_ constitute cotemporary evidence. + +Still there is a flaw in it; since it is quite possible that the term +_I['u]tnacynn_ may have been no true denomination of a section of the +Germans of England, but only the synonym of a different word, +_Wiht-saetan_. Alfred writes--comon hi of thrym folcum tham strangestan +Germaniae; thaet of _Seaxum_, and of _Angle_, and of _Geatum_. Of Geatum +fruman sindon Cantware and _Wiht-saetan_, thaet is seo the['o]d se Wiht +thaet ealond on eardadh--_they came of three folk, the strongest of +Germany; that of_ Saxons _and of_ Angles, _and of_ Geats. _Of_ Geats +_originally are_ the Kent people _and_ Wiht-set; _that is the people which_ +Wiht _the Island live on_. + +This changes the reasoning, and leads us to the following facts. + +_a._ The word in question is a compound=_Wight_=_the name of the isle_, + +_saetan_=_people_; as Somer-_set_, and Dor-_set_. + +_b._ The peninsula _Jut_-land was also called _Vit_-land, or _With_-land. + +_c._ The _wiht_- in _Wiht_-saetan is, undoubtedly, no such element as the +_vit_- in _Vit_-land=_Jut-land_; since it represents the older Celtic term, +known to us in the Romanized form _Vectis_. + +Putting all this together, it becomes possible (nay probable) that the +whole doctrine of a _Jute_ element in the Anglo-Saxon migration may have +arisen out of the fact of there being a portion of the people of Southern +England neighbours of the Saxons, and bearing the name _Wiht_-saetan; a +fact which, taken along with the juxtaposition of the _Vit_-landers +(_Jut_-landers) and Saxons on the Continent, suggested to the writers of a +long later age the doctrine of a Jute migration. + +s. 17. As this last objection impugns the evidence rather than the fact, +the following question finds place:-- {12} + +What were the Jutes of Germany? At present they are the natives of Jutland, +and their language is Danish rather than German. + +Neither is there reason to suppose that during the third and fourth +centuries it was otherwise. + +s. 18. This last circumstance detracts from the likelihood of the _fact_; +since in no part of Kent, Sussex, Hants, nor even in the Isle of Wight--a +likely place for a language to remain unchanged--have any traces of the old +Jute been found. + +s. 19. On the other hand the fact of Jutes, _even though Danes_, being +members of a Germanic confederation is not only probable, but such was +actually the case; at least for continental wars--_subactis, cum Saxonibus, +Euciis_ (Eutiis), _qui se nobis_ (_i.e._, the Franks), _propri[^a] +voluntate tradiderunt ... usque in Oceani littoribus dominio nostro +porrigitur_.--Theodebert to the Emperor Justinian.-- + + "Quem _Geta_, Vasco tremunt, Danus, Eutheo,[1] Saxo, Britannus, + Cum patre quos acie te domitasse patet." + +Venantius Fortunatus ad Chilpericum regem.[2] + +s. 20. _Inference._--Of the three following views--(1.) that the Jutes of +Jutland in the fourth and fifth centuries spoke Saxon; (2.) that they spoke +Danish at home, but lost their language after three or four centuries' +residence in England; and (3.) that a later historian was induced by the +similarity between the term _Wiht-saetan_, as applied to the _people of the +Isle of Wight_, and _Wit-land_, as applied to _Jutland_, combined with the +real probability of the fact supposed, to assume a Jute origin for the +Saxons of the parts in question, the third is, in the mind of the present +writer, the most probable. + +s. 21. It has already been stated that concerning the Angles and Saxons, no +reasonable man will put the question which was put in respect to the Jutes, +_viz._, had they any real place among the Germanic invaders of England? +Respecting, however, their relations to each other, and their respective +geographical localities whilst occupants of Germany, anterior to {13} their +immigration into Britain, there is much that requires investigation. What +were the Saxons of Germany--what the Angles? + +s. 22. _Difficulties respecting the identification of the Saxons._--There +are two senses of the word _Saxon_, one of which causes difficulty by being +too limited; the other by being too wide. + +_a._ _The limited sense of the word Saxon._--This is what we get from +Ptolemy, the first author who names the Saxons, and who gives them a +limited locality at the mouth of the Elbe, bounded by the Sigulones, the +Sabalingi, the Kobandi, the Chali, the Phundusii, the Harudes, and other +tribes of the Cimbric Peninsula, of which the Saxons just occupied the +neck, and three small islands opposite--probably Fohr, Sylt, and Nordstand. + +Now a sense of the word _Saxon_ thus limited, would restrict the joint +conquerors of Britain to the small area comprized between the Elbe and +Eyder, of which they do not seem even to have held the whole. + +_b._ _The wide sense of the word Saxon._--The reader need scarcely be +reminded that the present kingdom of Saxony is as far inland as the +northern frontier of Bohemia. Laying this, however, out of the question, as +the effect of an extension subsequent to the invasion of Britain, we still +find Saxons in ancient Hanover, ancient Oldenburg, ancient Westphalia, and +(speaking roughly) over the greater part of the country drained by the +Weser, and of the area inclosed by the eastern feeders of the Lower Rhine, +the Elbe, and the range of the Hartz. + +Now as it is not likely that the limited Saxon area of Ptolemy should have +supplied the whole of our Saxon population, so on the other hand, it is +certain, that of a considerable portion of the Saxon area in its _wider_ +extent tribes other than the Saxons of England, were occupants. + +s. 23. _Difficulties respecting the word Angle._--The reader is referred to +an extract from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, in s. 16, where it is stated, +that "from the Angles' land (which has since always stood waste betwixt the +Jutes and the {14} Saxons) came the East-Angles, Middle-Angles, Mercians, +and all the Northumbrians." + +Thus to bring the great Angle population from an area no larger than the +county of Rutland, is an objection--but it is not the chief one. + +The chief objection to the Angles of England being derived from the little +district of Anglen, in Sleswick, lies in the fact of there being mention of +_Angli_ in another part of Germany. + +s. 24. This exposition of the elements of uncertainty will be followed by +an enumeration of-- + +1. Those portions of the Germanic populations, which from their +geographical position, are the likeliest, _[`a] priori_, to have helped to +people England. + +2. Those portions of the Germanic population, which although not supposed +to have contributed in any notable degree to the population of Britain, had +such continental relations to the Angles and Saxons, as to help in fixing +their localities. + +These two scenes of facts, give us what may be called our preliminary +_apparatus criticus_. + +s. 25. Between the northern limits of the Celtic populations of Gaul and +the southern boundary of the Scandinavians of Jutland, we find the area +which is most likely to have given origin to the Germans of England. This +is best considered under two heads. + +_a._ That of the proper _seaboard_, or the _coast_ from the Rhine to the +Eyder. + +_b._ That of the _rivers_, _i.e._, the communications between the ocean and +the inland country. + +This double division is _sufficient_, since it is not likely that Britain +was peopled by any tribes which were not either maritime, or the occupants +of a river. + +On the other hand, it is _necessary_, since although the _[`a] priori_ view +is in favour of the _coast_ having supplied the British immigration, the +chances of its having proceeded from the interior by the way of the large +rivers Rhine, Weser, and Elbe, must also be taken into consideration. {15} + +The importance of this latter alternative, will soon be seen. + +s. 26. _The Menapians._--Locality, from the country of the Morini on the +French side of the Straits of Dover, to the Scheldt. It is generally +considered that these were not Germans but Celts. The fact, however, is by +no means ascertained. If Germans, the Menapians were the tribes nearest to +Britain. Again, supposing that the present Flemings of Belgium are the +oldest inhabitants of the country, their origin is either wholly, or in +part, Menapian. Mentioned by Caesar. + +s. 27. _The Batavians._--Mentioned by Caesar; locality, from the Maas to +the Zuyder Zee. Conterminous with the Menapians on the south, and with the +Frisians on the north. If the present Dutch of Holland be the inhabitants +of the country from the time of Caesar downwards, their origin is Batavian. + +s. 28. _The Frisians._--First known to the Romans during the campaign of +Drusus--"tributum _Frisiis_ transrhenano populo--Drusus jusserat +modicum;"[3] Tacitus, Ann. iv. 72. Extended, according to Ptolemy, as far +north as the Ems--[Greek: ten de parokeanitin katechousin ... hoi +Phrissioi, mechri tou Amisiou potamou]. + +Now, as the dialect of the modern province of Friesland differs in many +important points from the Dutch of Holland and Flanders; and as there is +every reason to believe that the same, or greater difference, existed +between the old Frisians and the old Batavians, assuming each to have been +the mother-tongues of the present Frisian and Dutch respectively, we may +consider that in reaching the parts to the north of the Zuyder-Zee, we have +come to a second sub-division of the Germanic dialects; nevertheless, it is +not the division to which either the Angles or the Saxons belong, as may be +ascertained by the difference of dialect, or rather language. + +s. 29. _The Chauci._--Connected with the Frisii.--Falling into two +divisions--the lesser (?) Chauci, from the Ems to the Weser; the greater +(?) Chauci from the Weser to the Elbe--[Greek: meta de toutous] (the +Frisians), {16} [Greek: Kauchoi hoi mikroi mechri tou Ouisourgios potamou, +eita Kauchoi hoi meizous, mechri tou Albios potamou.] + +Tacitus describes the Chauci thus:--"Tam immensum terrarum spatium non +tenent tantum Chauci, sed et implent; populus inter Germanos nobilissimus." + +The Frisians, as has been stated, represent a separate subdivision of the +German dialects, as opposed to the ancient Batavian, and the modern Dutch +and Flemish. Did the Chauci represent a third, or were they part of the +Frisian division? + +The latter is the more likely, and that for the following reasons--Vestiges +of Frisian dialects are to be found on the Continent, in Oldenburgh, and +also in the island of Heligoland. + +More important still is the North-Frisian dialect. _North of the Elbe_, in +the Dutchy of Sleswick, and from the Eyder to Tondern, we find a tract of +land called, by Saxo Grammaticus, _Frisia Minor_, and by other writers, +_Frisia Eydorensis_. + +Now, as there are no grounds for considering these _North_ Frisians as +other than indigenous to the tract in question, we get an additional reason +for looking upon the intermediate line of coast as Frisian rather than +either Angle or Saxon--or, at least, such parts of it as are not expressly +stated to be otherwise. + +s. 30. _Inference._--As the whole coast south of the Elbe seems to have +been occupied by tribes speaking either Frisian or Batavian dialects, and +as neither of these sub-divisions represents the language of the Angles and +Saxons, the original localities of those invaders must be sought for either +north of the Elbe, or inland, along the course of the rivers, +_i.e._--inland. + +s. 31. _The Saxons and Nordalbingians._--North of the Elbe, and south of +the Eyder (as stated in s. 22), we meet the Saxons of Ptolemy; but that in +a very circumscribed locality. + +In the ninth century, the tribes of these parts are divided into three +divisions:-- + +_a._ The _Holtsati_=the people of Holstein. Here _holt_=_wood_, whilst +_sat_ is the _-set_ in Somer-_set_ and Dor-_set_. {17} + +_b._ The _Thiedmarsi_=_the people of Ditmarsh_. + +_c._ The _Stormarii_=_the people of Stormar_. + +Besides the names of these three particular divisions the tribes between +the Elbe and Eyder were called by the _general_ name of +_Nordalbingii_=_i.e. people to the north of the Elbe_. + +s. 32. _The people of Anglen_--North of the Nordalbingii; Anglen being the +name of a _district_ between the Schlie and Flensburg. + +s. 33. _The Jutes._--In _Jut_-land, north of the Angles and the +Northfrisians. + +s. 34. _The Saxons of Holstein, how large their area?_--There is no reason +for considering the Nordalbingian _Holtsati_, _Thiedmarsi_ and _Stormarii_ +as other than Saxons; although the fact of the Northfrisians to the north, +and of the Frisians of Hanover to the south of them, is a slight +complication of the _prim[^a] facie_ view. + +Neither is it necessary to identify the two divisions, and to consider the +Saxons as Frisians, or the Frisians as Saxons, as is done by some authors. + +It is only necessary to perceive the complication which the existence of +the Northfrisians introduces, and to recognise the improbability of _parts_ +of the present dutchies of Holstein and Sleswick having constituted the +_whole_ of the Anglo-Saxon area. + +In other words, we have to ascertain in what direction the Germanic +population represented by the Saxons at the mouth of the Elbe extended +itself--for some further extension there undoubtedly must have been. + +s. 35. This brings us to the other series of preliminary facts, viz.: the +consideration of the more important tribes of the middle and lower courses +of the three great rivers, the Rhine, the Weser, and the Elbe. + +s. 36. _The Germans of the Middle Rhine._--Of the Germans of the Lower and +Middle Rhine, it is only necessary to mention one-- + +_The Franks._--We shall see that, taking the two terms in their widest +sense, the _Franks_ and the _Saxons_ were in contact, a fact which makes it +necessary to notice at least some portion of the Frank area. {18} + +_a._ _Salian Franks._--If the element _Sal-_ represent the _-sel_, in the +name of the Dutch river _Y-ssel_, the locality of the Salian Franks was +Overyssel and Guelderland, whilst their ethnological relations were most +probably with the Batavians. + +_b._ _Chamavi._--In the Tabula Peutingeriana we find--Chamavi qui +_Elpranci_ (_leg. et Franci_). They were conterminous with the +Salii--[Greek: Hupedexamen men moiran tou Salion ethnous, Chamabous de +exelasa].--Julian, Op. p. 280.--D.N. + +The following extract is more important, as it shows that a Roman +communication _at least_ took place between the Rhine and Britain: [Greek: +Chamabon gar me bouleuomenon, adunaton estin ten tes Bretannikes nesou +sitopompian epi ta Rhomaika phrouria diapempesthai].--Eunap. in Except. +leg. ed., Bonn, p. 42.--D.N. + +The name Chamavi is still preserved in that of the district of _Hameland_, +near Deventer.--D.N. and G.D.S. + +The Bructeri, Sigambri, and Ripuarian Franks bring us to the Franks of the +Middle Rhine, a portion of the division which it is not necessary to +follow. + +s. 37. _The Thuringians._--First mentioned in the beginning of the fourth +century. Locality, between the Hartz, the Werra a feeder of the Weser, and +the Sala a feeder of the Elbe. As early as the sixth century the +Thuringians and Saxons are conterminous, and members of the same +confederation against the Franks.--D.N. + +s. 38. _The Catti._--Locality, the valley of the Fulda, forming part of the +Upper Weser. Conterminous with the Thuringi (from whom they were separated +by the river Werra) on the east, and the Franks on the west. The modern +form of the word _Catti_ is _Hesse_, and the principality of Hesse is their +old locality.--G.D.S. + +s. 39._ Geographical conditions of the Saxon area._--_Southern and northern +limits._--The Saxons were in league with the Thuringians and Jutes against +the Franks. + +By the Jutes they were limited on the north, by the Thuringians on the +south-east, and by the Franks on the south-west; the middle portion of the +southern frontier being formed by the Catti between the Franks and +Thuringians. {19} + +This gives us a _southern_ and a _northern_ limit. + +_Western limit._--This is formed by the Batavians and Frisians of the +sea-coast, _i.e._, by the Batavians of Holland, Guelderland, and Overyssel, +and, afterwards, by the Frisians of West and East Friesland, and of +Oldenburg. + +Here, however, the breadth of the non-Saxon area is uncertain. Generally +speaking, it is broadest in the southern, and narrowest in the northern +portion. The Frisian line is narrower than the Batavian, whilst when we +reach the Elbe the Saxons appear on the sea-coast. Perhaps they do so on +the Weser as well. + +s. 40. _Eastern limit._--_Preliminary remark._--Before the eastern limit of +the Saxons is investigated, it will be well to indicate the extent to which +it differs from the southern. + +_a._ The Thuringians, Catti (or Hessians), and Franks, on the southern +boundary of the Saxon area were _Germans_. Hence the line of demarcation +between their language was no broad and definite line, like that between +the English and the Welsh, but rather one representing a difference of +dialect, like that between the Yorkshire and the Lowland Scotch. Hence, +too, we ought not only not to be surprised, if we find dialects +intermediate to the Frank and Saxon, the Saxon and Thuringian, &c., but we +must expect to find them. + +_b._ The same is the case with the Batavian and Frisian frontier.--We +really find specimens of language which some writers call Saxon, and others +Dutch (Batavian). + +The eastern frontier, however, will be like the frontier between England +and Wales, where the line of demarcation is broad and definite, where there +are no intermediate and transitional dialects, and where the two contiguous +languages belong to different philological classes.--_The languages to the +east of the Saxon area will be allied to the languages of Russia, Poland, +and Bohemia;_ i.e., _they will be not Germanic but Slavonic._ + +_Note._--The northern frontier of the Saxon area is intermediate in +character to the western and southern on one hand, and to the eastern on +the other; the Danish of the Cimbric Peninsula being--though not +German--Gothic. {20} + +We begin at the northern portion of the Saxon area, _i.e._, the +south-eastern corner of the Cimbric Peninsula, and the parts about the Town +of Lubeck; where the Dutchies of Mecklenburg Schwerin and Holstein join. +The attention of the reader is particularly directed to the dates. + +s. 41. _Slavonians of Holstein, Mecklenburg, and Lauenburg._--The +_Polabi_--From _po_=_on_, and _Labe_=_the Elbe_. Name Slavonic. Germanized +by the addition of the termination--_ing_, and so become _Po-lab-ing-i_; +just as in _Kent_ we find the _Kent-ing-s_. Conterminous with the +Nordalbingian _Stormarii_, from whom they are divided by the river _Bille_, +a small confluent of the Elbe. Capital Ratzeburg. First mentioned by +writers subsequent to the time of Charlemagne.--D.N. + +s. 42. The _Wagrians_.--North of the Polabi, and within the Cimbric +Peninsula, divided from the Danes by the Eyder, from the Non-Danish +Nordalbingians by the Trave. Capital Oldenburg. The Isle of Femern was +Wagrian. Authorities--chiefly writers of and subsequent to the time of +Charlemagne. In one of these we learn that the town of _Hadhum_ (Sleswick) +lies between the Angles, the Saxons, and the _Wends_. + +Now, _Wend_ is the German designation of the _Slavonians_; so that there +must have been Slavonians in the Cimbric Peninsula at least as early as the +ninth century.--D.N. + +s. 43. _Obotriti_, written also _Obotritae_, _Abotriti_, _Abotridi_; +_Apodritae_, _Abatareni_, _Apdrede_, _Afdrege_, and for the sake of +distinction from a people of the same name, _Nort-Obtrezi_, occupants of +the western part of Mecklenburg, and extended as far east as the Warnow, as +far south as Schwerin. Called by Adam of Bremen, _Reregi_. The Obotrites +were allies of the Franks against the Saxons, and after the defeat and +partial removal of the latter, were transplanted to some of their +localities.--"Saxones transtulit" (_i.e._, Charlemagne), "in Franciam et +pagos transalbianos Abodritis dedit."--Eginhart Ann. A.D. 804.--D.N. + +s. 44. The _Lini_--Slavonians on the left bank of the Elbe, and the first +met with on that side of the river. Occupants of Danneburg, Luchow and +Wustrow, in Luneburg. By the {21} writers subsequent to the time of +Charlemagne the _Smeldengi_ (a German designation), and the _Bethenici_ are +mentioned along with the Lini (or Linones). Of this Slavonic a Paternoster +may be seen in the Mithridates representing the dialect of the +neighbourhood in Luchow in A.D. 1691. It is much mixed with the German. +About the middle of the last century this (Cis-Albian Slavonic) dialect +became extinct.--D.N. + +s. 45. The _Warnabi_ or _Warnavi_.--Locality. Parts about Grabow, Valley of +the Elbe. This is the locality of the _Varini_ of Tacitus, the [Greek: +Ouirounoi] of Ptolemy, and the _Werini_ of later writers, a tribe connected +with the Angli, and generally considered as Germanic.--D.N. + +s. 46. _Morizani._--The district round the Moritz Lake.--D.N. + +s. 47. _Doxani._--Locality; the valley of the Dosse.--D.N. + +s. 48. _Hevelli._--Locality; the valley of the Hevel. These are the +Slavonians of Brandenburg and Mittelmark.--D.N. + +s. 49. _Slavonians of Altmark._--In Altmark, as in Lunenburg, though on the +German side of the Elbe we find the names of the places Slavonic, _e.g._, +Klotze, Wrepke, Solpke, Blatz, Regatz, Colbitz, &c.; so that Altmark, like +Lunenburg, was originally a _Cis_-Albian Slavonic locality. + +s. 50. South of the Hevel we meet with the _Sorabian_, or _Sorb_ +Slavonians, the descendants of whom form at the present time part of the +population of Lusatia and Silesia. It is not, however, necessary to follow +these further, since the German frontier now begins to be Thuringian rather +than Saxon. + +s. 51. _Saxon area._--From the preceding investigations we determine the +area occupied by the Saxons of Germany to be nearly as follows: + +_a._--_Ethnologically considered._--Tract bounded on the north by the North +Frisian Germans and Jute Danes of Sleswick; on the north and north-east by +the Slavonians of the Elbe, sometimes _Trans_-Albian like the Wagrians and +Obotrites; sometimes _Cis_-Albian, like the Linones and the Slaves of +Altmark; on the south by the Thuringians, Catti, and Franks; on the west by +the Franks, Batavians, and Frisians. + +_b._ _Considered in relation to the ancient population that it {22} +comprised._--The country of the Saxons of Ptolemy; the Angli of Tacitus; +the Langobardi of Tacitus; the Angrivarii; the Dulgubini; the Ampsivarii +(?); the Bructeri Minores (?); the Fosi, and Cherusci; and probably part of +the Cauci. Of populations mentioned by the later writers (_i.e._ of those +between the seventh and eleventh centuries), the following belong to this +area--the Stormarii, Thietmarsi, Hotsati (=the Nordalbingii, or Nordleudi), +the Ostfali, (Osterluidi), Westfali, Angarii, and Eald-Seaxan (Old Saxons). + +_c._ _Considered in relation to its modern population._--Here it coincides +most closely with the kingdom of Hanover, _plus_ parts of the Dutchies of +Holstein and Oldenburg, and parts of Altmark? Brunswick? and Westphalia, +and _minus_ the Frisian portion of East Friesland, and the Slavonic part of +Luneburg. + +d. _River system._--By extending the Saxons of Westphalia as far as Cleves +(which has been done by competent judges) we carry the western limit to the +neighbourhood of the Rhine. This, however, is as far as it can safely be +carried. In the respect to the Upper Ems, it was probably Saxon, the lower +part being Frisian. The Weser is pre-eminently the river of the Saxons, +with the water-system of which their area coincides more closely than with +any other physical division. The Elbe was much in the same relation to the +Germans and Slavonians, as the Rhine was to the Germans and the Gauls. +Roughly speaking, it is the frontier--the _Cis_-Albian Slaves (the Linones +and the Slavonians of Altmark) being quite as numerous as the +_Trans_-Albian Germans, (the people of Stormar, Ditmarsh, and Holstein). +The Eyder was perhaps equally Danish, Frisian, and Saxon. + +_e._ _Mountains._--The watershed of the Weser on the one side, and of the +Ruhr and Lippe on the other, is the chief high land _contained_ within the +Saxon area, and is noticed as being the line most likely to form a +subdivision of the Saxon population, either in the way of dialect or +political relations--_in case such a subdivision exists_, a point which +will be considered in the next chapter. + + * * * * * + + +{23} + +CHAPTER III. + +OF THE DIALECTS OF THE SAXON AREA, AND OF THE SO-CALLED, OLD SAXON. + +s. 52. 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. In doing this, it may as well be asked, First, what we +expect, _[`a] priori_; Second, what we really find. + +s. 53. To the Saxon area in Germany, there are five philological frontiers, +the Slavonic, the Frisian, the Batavian, the Frank, and the Thuringian, to +which may probably be added the Hessian; in each of which, except the +Slavonic, we may expect that the philological phenomenon of intermixture +and transition will occur. Thus-- + +_a._ The Saxon of Holstein may be expected to approach the Jute and +Frisian. + +_b._ That of South Oldenburg and East Friesland, the Frisian and Batavian. + +_c._ That of Westphalia, the Batavian and Frank. + +_d_, e. That of the Hessian and Thuringian frontiers, the Hessian and +Thuringian. + +Finally, the Saxon of the centre of the area is expected to be the Saxon of +the most typical character. + +s. 54. Such is what we expect. How far it was the fact is not known for +want of _data_. What is known, however, is as follows.--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. {24} + +s. 55. 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. 56. 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. + +s. 57. 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, (2) Hildubrand and Hathubrant, (3) the Carolinian Psalms. + +s. 58. 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. Supposing the nomenclature to +be based upon any of the preceding facts, we might have the following +nomenclature:-- + + FOR THE SAXON OF THE CONTINENT. FOR THE SAXON OF ENGLAND. + + 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.[4] Saxon of Beowulf.[4] + +Of these names the last would be the best for strictly scientific purposes, +or for the purposes of investigation; since the fact upon which it is based +is the most undeniable. + +Such is what the nomenclature might be, or, perhaps, ought to be. What it +is _is_ another question. + +{25} + +s. 59. The Saxon of England is called Anglo-Saxon; a term against which no +exception can be raised. + +s. 60. The Saxon of the Continental _used to_ be called _Dano_-Saxon, and +_is_ called _Old_ Saxon. + +s. 61. _Why called _Dano_-Saxon._--When the poem called _Heliand_ was first +discovered (and that 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. 62. _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; the Saxon of the Heliand is most probably a _sister_-dialect +of the _Anglo_-Saxon, rather the _Anglo_-Saxon itself is a continental +locality. Exceptionable, however, as it is, it will be employed. + +s. 63. The _data_ for the study of the Old Saxon are as follows:-- + +1. _Abrenuntiatio Diaboli, e Codice Vaticano._--Graff, Diutisca, ii. 191. + +2. _Confessionis Formulae, e Codice Essensi._--Lacomblet, Archiv, fuer +Geschichte des Niederrhins, 1, 4-9. + +3. _Fragmentum de Festo omnium Sanctorum, e Codice Essensi._--Ibid. + +4. _Rotulus redituum Essensis._--Ibid. + +5. _The Frekkenhorst Roll._--Denkmaeler von Dorow, 1, 2, 1. + +6. _Glossae Saxonicae, e Codice Argentorat._--Diutisca, 192. + +7. _T. Lipsii; Epist. cent. III. ad Belgas pertinentium, Ep._ 44. + +8. _Hildebrand._--Heroic fragment, in alliterative metre. + +9. _The Carolinian Psalms._--A translation of the Psalms, referred to the +time of Charlemagne; sometimes considered to be old Batavian. + +10. _Heliand_, a Gospel Harmony in alliterative metre, and the chief _Old_ +Saxon composition extant. {26} + +SPECIMEN. + +s. 64. _Heliand_, pp. 12, 13. (_Schmeller's Edition._) + +LUC. II. 8-13. + + Tho uuard managun cud, Then it was to many known, + Obar thesa uuidon uuerold. Over this wide world. + Uuardos antfundun, The words they discovered, + Thea thar ehuscalcos Those that there, as horse-grooms, + Uta uuarun, Were without, + Uueros an uuahtu, Men at watch, + Uuiggeo gomean, Horses to tend, + Fehas aftar felda: Cattle on the field-- + Gisahun finistri an tuue They saw the darkness in two + Telatan an lufte; Dissipated in the atmosphere, + Endi quam lioht Godes, And came a light of God + Uuanum thurh thui uuolcan; --through the welkin; + Endi thea uuardos thar And the words there + Bifeng an them felda. Caught on the field. + Sie uurdun an forhtun tho, They were in fright then + Thea man an ira moda; The men in their mood-- + Gisahun thar mahtigna They saw there mighty + Godes Engil cuman; Angel of God come; + The im tegegnes sprac. That to them face to face spake. + Het that im thea uuardos-- It bade them these words-- + "Uuiht ne antdredin "Dread not a whit + Ledes fon them liohta. Of mischief from the light. + Ic scal eu quad he liobora thing, I shall to you speak glad things, + Suido uuarlico Very true; + Uuilleon seggean, Say commands; + Cudean craft mikil. Show great strength. + Nu is Krist geboran, Now is Christ born, + An thesero selbun naht, In this self-same night; + Salig barn Godes, The blessed child of God, + An thera Davides burg, In David's city, + Drohtin the godo. The Lord the good. + That is mendislo That is exultation + Manno cunneas, To the races of men, + Allaro firiho fruma. Of all men the advancement. + Thar gi ina fidan mugun, There ye may find him + An Bethlema burg, In the city of Bethlehem, + Barno rikiost. The noblest of children-- + Hebbiath that te tecna, Ye have as a token + {27} + That ic eu gitellean mag, That I tell ye + Uuarun uuordun, True words, + That he thar biuundan ligid, That he there swathed lieth, + That kind an enera cribbiun, The child in a crib, + Tho he si cuning obar al Though he be King over all + Erdun endi himiles, Earth and Heaven, + Endi obar eldeo barn, And over the sons of men, + Uueroldes uualdand." Of the world the Ruler." + Reht so he tho that uuord gespracenun Right as he that word spake, + So uuard thar engilo te them So was there of Angels to them, + Unrim cuman, In a multitude, come + Helag heriskepi, A holy host, + Fon hebanuuanga, From the Heaven-plains, + Fagar folc Godes, The fair folk of God, + Endi filu sprakun, And much they spake + Lofuuord manag, Praise-words many, + Liudeo herron; _To_ the Lord of Hosts (people). + Athobun tho helagna sang, They raised the holy song, + Tho sie eft te hebanuuanga As they back to the Heaven-plains + Uundun thurh thin uuolcan. Wound through the welkin. + Thea uuardos hordun, The words they heard, + Huo thin engilo craft How the strength of the Angels + Alomahtigna God, The Almighty God, + Suido uuerdlico, Very worthily, + Uuordun louodun. With words praised. + "Diurida si nu," quadun sie, "Love be there now," quoth they, + "Drohtine selbun, "To the Lord himself + An them hohoston On the highest + Himilo rikea; Kingdom of Heaven, + Endi fridu an erdu, And peace on earth + Firiho barnum, To the children of men, + Goduuilligun gumun, Goodwilled men + Them the God antkennead, Who know God, + Thurh hluttran hugi." Through a pure mind." + + * * * * * + + +{28} + +CHAPTER IV. + +AFFINITIES OF THE ENGLISH WITH THE LANGUAGES OF GERMANY AND SCANDINAVIA. + +s. 65. The last chapter has limited the Anglo-Saxon area to the northern +part of the Saxon area in general. Further details, however, upon this +point, may stand over until the _general_ affinities of the English +language have been considered. + +s. 66. Over and above those languages of Germany and Holland which were +akin to the dialects of the Angles and the Saxons, cognate languages were +spoken in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, and the Feroe isles, _i.e._, in +Scandinavia. + +s. 67. 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. 68. Of this great _stock_ of languages the Scandinavian is one _branch_; +the Germanic, called also Teutonic, another. + +s. 69. 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. On the side +of Lapland the languages of this branch come in contact with the Laplandic +and Finlandic; whilst in Sleswick they are bounded by the Low German. {29} + +SPECIMENS. + +_Icelandic_ (Fareyinga-Saga--Ed. Mohnike). + + Ok n['u] er that eitthvert sinn um sumarit, at Sigmundr maelti til + th['o]ris: "Hvat mun verdha, tho at vidh farim ['i] sk['o]g thenna, er + h[`e]r er nordhr fr['a] gardhi?" th['o]rir svarar: "['a] thv['i] er + m[`e]r eingi forvitni," segir hann. "Ekki er m[`e]r sv[^a] gefit," + segir Sigmundr, "ok th['a]ngat skal ek fara." "th['u] munt r['a]dha + hlj['o]ta," segir th[^u]rir, "en brj['o]tum vidh tha bodhordh f['o]stra + m['i]ns." Nu f['o]ru their, ok hafdhi Sigmundr vidharoexi eina i hendi + s[`e]r; koma i sk['o]ginn, ok ['i] rj[^o]dhr eitt fagurt; ok er their + hafa thar eigi leingi verit, th['a] heyra their bjoern mikinn hardhla + ok grimligan. that var vidhbjoern mikill, ['u]lfgr['a]r at lit. their + hlaupa nu aptra ['a] stiginn than, er their hoeldhu th['a]ngat farit; + stigrinn var mj['o]r ok thraurigr, ok hleypr th['o]rir fyrir, en + Sigmundr s['i]dhar. D['y]rit bleypr n['u] eptir theim ['a] stiginn, ok + verdhr thv['i] thraungr stigrinn, ok brotna eikrnar fyrir thvi. + Sigmundr snyr th['a] skj['o]tt ['u]t af stignum millum trj['a]nna, ok + bidhr thar til er dyrit kemr jafn-fram honum. tha hoeggr hann jafnt + medhal hlusta ['a] d[^y]rinu medh tveim hoendum, sv[^a] at exin soekkr. + En d[^y]rit fellr ['a]fram, ok er dautt. + +_Feroic._ + + N['u] vaer so til ajna Ferina um Summari, at Sigmundur snakkaji so vi + Towra: "Kvat man bagga, towat v[`i]d faerin uj henda Skowin, uj [`e]r + h[`e]r noran-firi Gaerin?" Towrur svaerar, "Ikkji haevi e Hu at + forvitnast ettir tuj," s[`i]ir han. "Ikkji eri e so sintur," s[`i]ir + Sigmundur, "og haear skael e fara." "T[`u] fert t[oa] at r[oa]a," + s[`i]ir Towrur, "men t[oa] browtum vid Forbo Fostirfaejir mujns." N[`u] + fowru tajr, og Sigmundur heji ajna oeksi til Brennuv[`i] uj Hondini; + tajr koma in uj Skowin, og [oa] ajt vaekurt rudda Plos men ikkji haeva + tajr veri haer l['a]jngji, firin tajr hojra kvoedtt Brak uj Skownun, og + br[oa]t ettir sujgja tajr ajna egvulia stowra Bjoedn og gruiska. Tae + vae ajn stowr Skowbjoedn gr[oa]gulmut [oa] Litinun. Tair lejpa n[`u] + attir [oa] R[oa]sina, sum tajr hoeddu gingji ettir; R[oa]sin vaer + mj[oa]v og trong; Towrur lejpur undan, og Sigmundur attan[oa]. Djowri + leipur n[`u] ettir tajmum [oa] R[oa]sini; og n[`u] verur R[oa]sin trong + kj[oa] tuj, so at Ajkjinar brotnavu fr[oa] tuj. Sigmundur snujur t[oa] + kvikliani ['u]taef R[oa]sini inimidlum Trjini, og bujar haer til Djowri + kjemur abajnt han. T[oa] hoeggur han bajnt uj Ojrnalystri [oa] + Djowrinum vi b[oa]vun Hondun, so at oexin soekkur in, og Djowri dettir + bajnt framettir, og er standejt. + +_Swedish._ + + Och nu var det eng[oa]ng on sommaren, som Sigmund sade till Thorer: + "Hvad m[oa]nde vael deraf warda, om vi [oa]ter g[oa] ut i skogen, som + ligger der norr on g[oa]rden?" "Det aer jag alldeles icke nyfiken att + veta," svarade Thor. "Icke g[oa]r det s[oa] med mig," sade Sigmund, + "och ditret maeste jag." "Du kommer d[oa] att r[oa]da," sade Thor, "men + dermed oefvertraeda vi v[oa]r {30} Fosterfaders bud." De gingo nu + [oa]stad, och Sigmund bade en vedyxa i handen; de kommo in i skogen, + och strat derp[oa] fingo de se en ganska stor och vildsinnt bjoern, en + dr[oa]pelig skogsbjoern, varg-gr[oa] till faergen. De sprungo d[oa] + tillbaka p[oa] samma stig som de hade kommit dit. Stigen var smal och + tr[oa]ng; och Thorer sprang fr[oa]mst, men Sigmund efterst. Djuret lopp + nu efter dem p[oa] stigen, och stigen blef tr[oa]ng foer detsamma, + s[oa] att traeden soenderbroetos i dess lopp. Sigmund vaende d[oa] + kurtigt retaf fr[oa]n stigen, och staellde sig mellan traeden, samt + stod der, tills djuret kom fram midt foer honom. D[oa] fattade han yxan + med begge haenderna, och hoegg midt emellan oeronen p[oa] djuret, s[oa] + att yxan gick in, och djuret stoertade fram[oa]t, och dog p[oa] + staellet. + +_Danish._ + + Og nu var det engang om Sommeren, at Sigmund sagde til Thorer: "Hvad + mon der vel kan flyde af, om vi end gaae hen i den Skov, som ligger her + nordenfor Gaarden?" "Det er jeg ikken nysgjerrig efter at vide," + svarede Thorer. "Ei gaar det mig saa," sagde Sigmund, "og derud maa + jeg." "Du kommer da til at raade," sagde Thorer, "men da overtraede, vi + vor Fosterfaders Bud." De gik nu, og Sigmund havde en Vedoexe i + Haanden; de kom ind i Skoven, og strax derpaa saae de en meget stor og + grum Bjoern, en drabelig Skovejoern, ulvegraa af Farve. De loeb da + tilbage ad den samme Sti, ad hvilken de vare komne derhen. Stien var + smal og trang; og Thorer loeb forrest, men Sigmund bagerst. Dyret loeb + nu efter dem paa Stien, og Stien blev trang for det, og Traeerne + broedes i dets. Loeb Sigmund dreiede da nu hurtig ud af Stien, og + stillede sig imellem Traeerne, og stod der indtil Dyret kom frem lige + for ham. Da fattede han oexen med begge Haender, og hug lige imellem + oererne paa Dyret, saa at oexen sank i, og Dyret styrtede fremad, og + var doedt paa Stedet. + +_English._ + + And now is it a time about the summer, that Sigmund spake to Thorir: + "What would become, even if we two go into the wood (shaw), which here + is north from the house?" Thorir answers, "Thereto there is to me no + curiosity," says he. "So is it not with me," says Sigmund, "and thither + shall I go." "Thou mayst counsel," says Thorir, "but we two break the + bidding-word of foster-father mine." Now go they, and Sigmund had a + wood-axe in his hands; they come into the wood, and into a fair place; + and as they had not been there long, they hear a bear, big, fierce, and + grim. It was a wood-bear, big, wolf-grey in hue. They run (leap) now + back (after) to the path, by which they had gone thither. The path was + narrow and strait; and Thorir runs first, and Sigmund after. The beast + runs now after them on the path, and the path becomes strait, and + broken oaks before it. Sigmund turns then short out of the path among + the trees, and bides there till the beast comes even with him. Then + cuts he even in between {31} the ears of the beast with his two hands, + so that the axe sinks, and the beast falls forward, and is dead. + +s. 70. The Teutonic branch falls into three divisions:-- + +1. The Moeso-Gothic. + +2. The High Germanic. + +3. The Low Germanic. + +s. 71. 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 Hermanic, +Alaric, Theodoric, Genseric (?), Euric, Athanaric, and Totila. + +This history of this language, and the meaning of the term by which it is +designated, is best explained by the following passages:-- + +_a._ A.D. 482. "Trocondo et Severino consulibus--Theodoricus cognomento +Valamer utramque Macedoniam, Thessaliamque depopulatus est, Larissam quoque +metropolim depredatus, Fausto solo consule (A.D. 485)--Idem Theodoricus rex +Gothorum Zenonis Augusti munificentia pene pacatus, magisterque praesentis +militiae factus, consul quoque designatus, _creditam sibi Ripensis Daciae +partem_ Moesiaeque _inferioris, cum suis satellitibus pro tempore +tenuit_."--Marcellini Comitis Chronicon, D.N. + +_b._ "Frederichus ad Theodoricum regem, qui tunc apud Novam Civitatem +provinciae Moesiae morabatur, profectus est."--Vita S. Severini, D.N. + +_c._ "Zeno misit ad Civitatem Novam, in qu[^a] erat Theodoricus dux +Gothorum, filius Valameris, et eum invitavit in solatium sibi adversus +Basiliscum."--Anon. Valesii, p. 663, D.N. + +d. _Civitas Nova_ is Nicopolis on the Danube; and the nation thus spoken of +is the Gothic nation in the time of Zeno. At this time they are settled in +the Lower Moesia, or Bulgaria. + +How they got here from the _northern_ side of the Danube we find in the +history of the reign of Valens. When pressed by intestine wars, and by the +movements of the Huns, they were assisted by that emperor, and settled in +the parts in question. {32} + +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. 72. How Gothic tribes reached the Lower Danube is a point upon which +there is a variety of opinion. The following facts, however, may serve as +the basis of our reasoning. + +A.D. 249-251--The Goths are found about equidistant from the Euxine Sea, +and the eastern portion of the range of Mount Haemus, in the Lower Moesia, +and at Marcianopolis. Here they gain a great battle against the Romans, in +which the Emperor Decius is killed. + +His successor, Gallus, purchases a peace. + +Valerian defends himself against them. + +During the reign of Gallienus they appear as _maritime_ warriors, and +ravage Asia Minor, Greece, and Illyria. + +A.D. 269--Are conquered at Naissus, on the western boundary of Moesia +_Superior_ by Claudius. + +A.D. 282--Are defeated by Carus. + +A.D. 321--Ravage Moesia (Inferior?) and Thrace. + +A.D. 336--Attacked by Constantine in Dacia--_north_ of the Danube. + +A.D. 373--In the reign of Valens (as already stated), they were admitted to +settle within the limits of the empire. + +s. 73. Now, although all this explains, how a Gothic language was spoken in +Bulgaria, and how remnants of it have been preserved until the nineteenth +century, the manner in which the tribe who spoke it reached Marcianopolis, +so as to conquer the Emperor Decius, in A.D. 249, is unexplained. + +Concerning this there are three opinions-- + +_A._ _The Baltic doctrine._ According to this the Goths migrated from the +Baltic to the Maeotis, from the Maeotis to the Euxine, and from the Euxine +to the Danube, along which river they moved from _east to west_. {33} + +_B._ _The Getic doctrine._--Here the Goths are made out to be the +aborigines of the Lower Danube, of Dacia, Moesia, and even Thrace; in which +case their movement was, also, from _east to west_. + +_C._ _The German doctrine._--Here the migration is from west to east, along +the course of the Danube, from some part of south-eastern Germany, as its +starting-point, to Asia Minor as its extreme point, and to Bulgaria +(_Moesia Inferior_) as its point of settlement. + +s. 74. Respecting the first of these views the most that can be said in its +favour is, that it is laid down by Jornandes, who wrote in the fifth +century, and founded his history upon the earlier writings of Ablavius and +Dexippus, Gothic historians, who, in their turn took their account from the +old legends of the Goths themselves--_in priscis eorum carminibus, paene +historico ritu_. On the other hand, the evidence is, at best, traditional, +the fact improbable, and the likelihood of some such genealogy being +concocted after the relationship between the Goths of the Euxine, and +Germans of the Baltic had been ascertained exceedingly great. + +s. 75. The second is supported by no less an authority than Grimm, in his +latest work, the History of the German Language;--and the fact of so +learned and comprehensive an investigator having admitted it, is, in the +mind of the present writer, the only circumstance in its favour. Over and +above the arguments that may be founded on a fact which will soon be +noticed, the chief reasons are deduced from a list of Dacian or Getic +plants in Dioscorides, which are considered to bear names significant in +the German. Whether or not, the details of this line of criticism will +satisfy the reader who refers to them, it is certain that they are not +likely to take a more cogent form than they take in the hands of the +_Deutsche Grammatik_. + +s. 76. The third opinion is the likeliest; and if it were not for a single +difficulty would, probably, never have been demurred to. The fact in +question is the similarity between the words _Getae_ and _Gothi_. + +The fact that a tribe called G-O-T-H-I should, when they first peopled the +Moesogothic country, have hit upon the {34} country of a people with a name +so like their own as G-E-T-AE, by mere accident, is strange. English or +American colonies might be sent to some thousand places before one would be +found with a name so like that of the mother-country as _Get_ is to _Got_. +The chances, therefore, are that the similarity of name is _not_ +accidental, but that there is some historical, ethnological, or +geographical grounds to account for it. Grimm's view has been noticed. He +recognises the difficulty, and accounts for it by making the _Goths_ +indigenous to the land of Getae. + +To a writer who (at one and the same time) finds difficulty in believing +that this similarity is accidental and is dissatisfied with Grimm's +reasoning, there seems to be no other alternative but to consider that the +Goths of the Lower Danube had no existence at all in Germany _under that +name_, that they left their country under a different[5] one, and that they +took the one by which they were known to the Romans (and through them to +us), on reaching the land of the _Getae_--as, in England, the Saxons of +_Essex_ and _Wessex_ did _not_ (since they brought their name with them), +but as the East and West _Kent-ings_[6] did. + +This doctrine, of course, falls to the ground directly it can be shown that +the Goths of Moesia were either called _Goths_ in Germany, or any where +else, anterior to their settlement in the _Geta_-land. + +Be this, however, as it may, the first division of the Teutonic branch of +languages is the Moeso-Gothic of the Goths of the Lower Danube, in the +fourth century, as preserved in the translation of Ulphilas, and in other +less important fragments. + +SPECIMEN. + +LUKE i. 46-56. + + Jah quath Mariam. Mikileid saivala meina Fan, jah svegneid ahma meins + du Gotha nasjand meinamma. Unte insahu du hnaivenai thiujos seinaizos: + {35} sai allis fram himma nu audagjand mik alla kunja. Unte gatavida + mis mikilein sa mahteiga, jah veih namo is. Jah armahairtei is in + aldins ald[^e] thaim ogandam ina. Gatavida svinthein in arma seinamma; + distahida mikilthuhtans gahugdai hairtins seinis; gadrausida mahteigans + af stolam, jah ushauhida gahnaividans; gredigans gas[^o]thida thiuthe, + jah gabignandans insandida lausans; hleibida Israela thiumagu seinamma, + gamundans armahairteins, sva sve rodida du attam unsaraim Abrahaima jah + fraiv is und aiv. + +s. 77. The Old High German, called also Francic and Alemannic, was spoken +in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries, in Suabia, Bavaria, and +Franconia. It is in the Old High German that the Krist of Otfrid, the +Psalms of Notker, the Canticle of Willeram, the Glosses of Kero, the Vita +Annonis, &c., are composed. + +SPECIMEN. + +KRIST, i. 12. (Edit. Graff.) + + Tho uuarun thar in lante hirta haltente; + Thes fehes datun uuarta uuidar fianta. + Zi ['i]n quam boto sconi, engil scinenti; + Joh uuurtun sie inliuhte fon himilisgen liohte. + Forahtun sie in tho gahun so sinan anasahun; + Joh hintarquamun harto thes Gotes boten uuorto. + Sprah ther Gotes boto sar. "Ih scal ['i]['u] sagen uuuntar. + Ju scal sin fon Gote heil; nales forahta nihein. + Ih scal iu sagen imbot, gibot ther himilisgo Got; + Ouh nist ther er gihorti so fronisg arunti. + Thes uuirdit uuorolt sinu zi euuidon blidu, + Joh al giscaft thiu in uuorolti thesa erdun ist ouh dretenti + Niuuui boran habet thiz lant then himilisgon Heilant; + The ist Druhtin Krist guater fon iungeru muater. + In Bethleem thiue kuninga thie uuarun alle thanana, + Fon in uuard ouh giboran iu sin muater magad sconu. + Sagen ih ['i]['u], guate man, uuio ir nan sculut findan, + Zeichen ouh gizami thuruh thaz seltsani. + Zi theru burgi faret hinana, ir findet, so ih ['i]['u] sageta, + Kind niuuui boranaz in kripphun gilegitaz. + Tho quam unz er zin tho sprah engilo heriscaf, + Himilisgu menigi, sus alle singenti-- + In himilriches hohi si Gote guallichi; + Si in erdu fridu ouh allen thie fol sin guates uuillen + +{36} + +_The Same, in English._ + + Then there was in the land herdsmen feeding: + Of their cattle they made watch against foes. + To them came a messenger fair, an angel shining, + And they became lit with heavenly light. + They feared, suddenly as on him they looked; + And followed much the words of God's messenger: + Spake there God's messenger strait, "I shall to you say wonders. + To you shall there be from God health; fear nothing at all. + I shall to you say a message, the bidding of the heavenly God: + Also there is none who has heard so glad an errand. + Therefore becomes his world for ever blythe, + And all creatures that in the world are treading this earth. + Newly borne has this land the heavenly Savior, + Who is the Lord Christ, good, from a young mother. + In Bethleem, of the kings they were all thence-- + From them was also born his mother, a maid fair. + I say to you, good men, how ye him shall find, + A sign and token, through this wonder. + To your burgh fare hence, ye find, so as I to you said, + A child, new born, in a crib lying." + Then came, while he to them spake, of angels an host, + A heavenly retinue, thus all singing: + "In the heavenly kingdom's highth be to God glory; + Be on earth peace also to all who are full of God's will." + +The Middle High German ranges from the thirteenth Century to the +Reformation. + +s. 78. 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. 79. _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:-- {37} + +1. That a single language, spoken in two dialects, was originally common to +both Holland and Friesland. + +2. That from the northern of these dialects we have the Modern Frisian of +Friesland. + +3. From the southern, the Modern Dutch of Holland. + +The reason for this refinement is as follows:-- + +The Modern Dutch has certain grammatical forms _older_ than those of the +Old Frisian; _e.g._, the Dutch infinitives and the Dutch weak substantives, +in their oblique cases, end in _-en_; those of the Old Frisian in _-a_: the +form in _-en_ being the older. + +s. 80. 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. + +s. 81. In respect to its stages, we have the Old Frisian of the Asega-bog, +the Middle Frisian of Gysbert Japicx, and the Modern Frisian of the present +Frieslanders, Westphalians, and Heligolanders. + + _Asega-bog_, i. 3. p. 13, 14. (_Ed. Wiarda._) + + Thet is thiu thredde liodkest and thes Kynig Kerles ieft, theter allera + monna ek ana sina eyna gode besitte umberavat. Hit ne se thet ma hine + urwinne mith tele and mith rethe and mith riuchta thingate, sa hebbere + alsam sin Asega dema and dele to lioda londriuchte. Ther ne hach nen + Asega nenne dom to delande hit ne se thet hi to fara tha Keysere fon + Rume esweren hebbe and thet hi fon da liodon ekeren se. Sa hoch hi + thenne to demande and to delande tha fiande alsare friounde, thruch des + ethes willa, ther hi to fara tha Keysere fon Rume esweren heth, tho + demande and to delande widuon and weson, waluberon and alle werlosa + liodon, like to helpande and sine threa knilinge. Alsa thi Asega nimth + tha unriuchta mida and tha urlouada panninga, and ma hini urtinga mi + mith twam sine juenethon an thes Kyninges bonne, sa ne hoch hi nenne + dom mar to delande, truch thet thi Asega thi biteknath thene prestere, + hwande hia send siande and hia skilun wesa agon there heliga + Kerstenede, hia skilun helpa alle tham ther hiam seluon nauwet helpa ne + muge. + +{38} + +_The Same, in English._ + + That is the third determination and concession of King Charles, that of + all men each one possess his own goods (house?) unrobbed. It may not be + that any man overcome him with charge (tales), and with summons (rede), + and with legal action. So let him hold as his Asega (judge) dooms and + deals according to the land-right of the people. There shall no Asega + deal a doom unless it be that before the Caesar of Rome he shall have + sworn, and that he shall have been by the people chosen. He has then to + doom and deal to foes as to friends, through the force (will) of the + oath which he before the Caesar of Rome has sworn, to doom and to deal + to widows and orphans, to wayfarers and all defenceless people, to help + them as his own kind in the third degree. If the Asega take an illegal + reward, or pledged money, and a man convict him before two of his + colleagues in the King's Court, he has no more to doom, since it is the + Asega that betokens the priest, and they are seeing, and they should be + the eyes of the Holy Christendom, they should help all those who may + nought help themselves. + +s. 82. _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 will +be henceforth called by their continental name of _Platt-Deutsch_; which +although foreign, is convenient. + +s. 83. The points of likeness and difference between two languages +belonging to different branches of the same Gothic stock may be partially +collected from the following comparison between certain Icelandic, Norse or +Scandinavian, and certain Anglo-Saxon or Germanic inflections. + +Declension of substantives ending with a _vowel_. + + _Saxon._ _Icelandic._ + + _Neuter._ _Neuter._ + + _Sing. Nom._ E['a]ge (_an eye_). Auga (_an eye_). + _Acc._ E['a]ge Auga. + _Dat._ E['a]gan Auga. + _Gen._ E['a]gan Auga. + {39} + _Plur. Nom._ E['a]gan Augu. + _Acc._ E['a]gan Augu. + _Dat._ E['a]gan Augum. + _Gen._ E['a]gan Augna. + + _Masculine._ _Masculine._ + + _Sing. Nom._ Nama (_a name_). Bogi (_a bow_). + _Acc._ Naman Boga. + _Dat._ Naman Boga. + _Gen._ Naman Boga. + _Plur. Nom._ Naman Bogar. + _Acc._ Naman Boga. + _Dat._ Namum Bogum. + _Gen._ Namena Boga. + + _Feminine._ _Feminine._ + + _Sing. Nom._ Tunge (_a tongue_). T['u]nga (_a tongue_). + _Acc._ Tungan T['u]ngu. + _Dat._ Tungan T['u]ngu. + _Gen._ Tungan T['u]ngu. + _Plur. Nom._ Tungan T['u]ngur. + _Acc._ Tungan T['u]ngur. + _Dat._ Tungum T['u]ngum. + _Gen._ Tungena T['u]ngna. + +Declension of Substantives ending with a _Consonant_. + + _Saxon._ _Icelandic._ + + _Neuter._ _Neuter._ + + _Sing. Nom._ Le['a]f (_a leaf_). Skip (_a ship_). + _Acc._ Le['a]f Skip. + _Dat._ Le['a]fe Skipi. + _Gen._ Le['a]fes Skips. + _Plur. Nom._ Le['a]f Skip. + _Acc._ Le['a]f Skip. + _Dat._ Le['a]fum Skipum. + _Gen._ Le['a]fa Skipa. + + _Masculine._ _Masculine._ + + _Sing. Nom._ Smidh (_a smith_). Konungr (_a king_). + _Acc._ Smidh Konung. + _Dat._ Smidhe Konungi. + _Gen._ Smidhes Konungs. + {40} + _Plur. Nom._ Smidhas Konungar. + _Acc._ Smidhas Konunga. + _Dat._ Smidhum Konungum. + _Gen._ Smidha Konunga. + + _Feminine._ _Feminine._ + _Sing. Nom._ Spr['ae]c (_a speech_). Br['u]dhr (_a bride_). + _Acc._ Spr['ae]ce Br['u]i. + _Dat._ Spr['ae]ce Br['u]dhi. + _Gen._ Spr['ae]ce Br['u]dhar. + _Plur. Nom._ Spr['ae]ca Br['u]dhir. + _Acc._ Spr['ae]ca Br['u]dhir. + _Dat._ Spr['ae]cum Br['u]dhum. + _Gen._ Spr['ae]ca Br['u]dha. + +s. 84. The most characteristic difference between the Saxon and Icelandic +lies in the peculiar position of the definite article in the latter +language. 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_ (N.), _hinn_ (M.), _hin_ (F.): 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). + {41} + _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. + +s. 85. 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_: Solen, _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. + +Reference will be made to this passage on more occasions than one, to show +how words originally distinct may, in the process of time, take the +appearance of being identical. To apply an expression of Mr. Cobbett's, +_en_=_a_, and _-en_=_the_, are _the same combination of letters, but not +the same word_. {42} + +DECLENSION OF ADJECTIVES. + + + _Saxon_. _Icelandic_. + _Definite_.[7] _Definite_.[7] + _Singular_. _Singular_. + + _Neut_. _Masc_. _Fem_. _Neut_. _Masc_. _Fem_. + + _Nom_. G['o]de G['o]da G['o]de. _Nom_. Haga Hagi Haga. + _Acc_. G['o]de G['o]dan G['o]dan. _Acc_. Haga Haga Hoegu. + _Abl_. G['o]dan G['o]dan G['o]dan. _Abl_. Haga Haga Hoegu. + _Dat_. G['o]dan G['o]dan G['o]dan. _Dat_. Haga Haga Hoegu. + _Gen_. G['o]dan G['o]dan G['o]dan. _Gen_. Haga Haga Hoegu. + + _Plural_. + _Hoegu_ is the Plural form for all + _Nom_. G['o]dan G['o]dan G['o]dan. the Cases and all the Genders. + _Acc_. G['o]dan G['o]dan G['o]dan. + _Abl_. G['o]dum G['o]dum G['o]dum. + _Dat_. G['o]dum G['o]dum G['o]dum. + _Gen_. G['o]dena G['o]dena G['o]dena. + + _Indefinite_. _Indefinite_. + _Singular_. _Singular_. + + _Neut_. _Masc_. _Fem_. _Neut_. _Masc_. _Fem_. + + _Nom_. G['o]d G['o]d G['o]d. _Nom_. Hagt Hagr Hoeg. + _Acc_. G['o]d G['o]dne G['o]de. _Acc_. Hagt Hagan Hoeg. + _Abl_. G['o]de G['o]de G['o]dre. _Abl_. Hoegu Hoegum Hagri. + _Dat_. G['o]dum G['o]dum G['o]dre. _Dat_. Hoegu Hoegum Hagri. + _Gen_. G['o]des G['o]des G['o]dre. _Gen_. Hags Hags Hagrar. + + _Plural_. _Plural_. + + _Nom_. G['o]de G['o]de G['o]de. _Nom_. Hoeg Hagir Hagar. + _Acc_. G['o]de G['o]de G['o]de. _Acc_. Hoeg Haga Hagar. + _Abl_. G['o]dum G['o]dum G['o]dum. _Abl_. Hoegum Hoegum Hoegum. + _Dat_. G['o]dum G['o]dum G['o]dum. _Dat_. Hoegum Hoegum Hoegum. + _Gen_. G['o]dra G['o]dra G['o]dra. _Gen_. Hagra Hagra Hagra. + +s. 86. Observe in the Icelandic forms the absence of the termination _-an_. +Observe also the neuter termination _-t_, as _hagr_, _hagt_. Throughout the +modern forms of the Icelandic (_viz._ the Swedish, Danish, and Norwegian +languages) this termination is still preserved: e.g., _en god Hest_, a good +horse; _et godt Hjaert_, a good heart; _en skoen Pige_, a beautiful damsel; +_et skarpt Svoerd_, a sharp sword. + +{43} + +s. 87. Amongst the pronouns the following differences present themselves. +The Saxon forms are, for the pronoun of the second person, _thu_ (thou), +_git_ (ye _two_), _ge_ (ye); whilst in Icelandic they are _thu_, _thidh_, +_per_, respectively. Again, in Saxon there is no reflective pronoun +corresponding with the Latin _se_. In Icelandic we have _sik_, _s['e]r_, +_sin_, corresponding to the Latin _se_, _sibi_, _suus_. Besides this, the +word _sin_ is declined, so that like the Latin _suus_ it becomes +adjectival. + + _Sing. Nom._ Sitt Sinn S['i]n. + _Acc._ Sitt Sinn S['i]na. + _Dat._ S['i]nu S['i]num Sinni. + _Gen._ Sins Sins Sinnar. + _Plur. Nom._ S['i]n S['i]nir S['i]nar. + _Acc._ S['i]n S['i]na S['i]nar. + _Dat._ S['i]num S['i]num S['i]num. + _Gen._ Sinna Sinna Sinna. + +In Saxon there is of course no such an adjectival form. _There_ the +Possessives of the Third Person correspond not with the Latin _suus_, +_sua_, _suum_; but with the Latin _ejus_ and _eorum_. The English words +_his_ and _her_ are _genitive_ cases, not _adjectives_. + +Further remarks upon the presence of the Reflective Pronoun _sik_ in +Icelandic, and its absence in Saxon, will appear in the sequel. + +THE NUMERALS. + + _Saxon._ _Icelandic._ + 1. ['A]n Eitt, einn, ein. + 2. Tw['a] Tvoe, tveir. + 3. Thre['o] Thrju, thrir. + 4. Feower Fjoegur, fj['o]rir. + 5. F['i]f Fimm. + 6. Six Sex. + 7. Seofon Sjoe. + 8. Eahta ['A]tta. + 9. Nigon Niu. + 10. Tyn Tiu. + +Of the Icelandic verbs the infinitives end in _-a_; as _kalla_, to call; +_elska_, to love; whereas the Saxon termination is _-an_; as _lufian_, to +love; _wyrcan_, to work. {44} + +s. 88. The persons are as follows:-- + + _Saxon._ _Icelandic._ + + _Pres. Sing._ 1. Baerne Brenni. + 2. Baernst Brennir. + 3. Baerndh Brennir. + _Plur._ 1. Baernadh Brennum. + 2. Baernadh Brennidh. + 3. Baernadh Brenna. + +s. 89. The characteristic, however, of the Icelandic (indeed, of all the +Scandinavian languages) is the possession of a _passive_ form, or a +_passive_ voice, ending in _-st_:--_Ek_, _thu_, _hann brennist_=_I_, +_thou_, _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:--1st. the reflective pronoun coalesces +with the verb, whilst the sense changes from that of a reflective to that +of a middle verb; 2nd. the _c_ changes to _t_, whilst the middle sense +passes into a passive one; 3rd. _t_ is dropped from the end of the word, +and the expression that was once reflective then becomes strictly passive. + +Now the Saxons have no passive voice at all. That they should have one +_originating_ like that of the Scandinavians was impossible. Having no +reflective pronoun, they had nothing to evolve it from. + + _The Auxiliary Verb._ + + _Saxon._ _Icelandic._ + + _Indicative. Present._ + + _Sing._ 1. Eom (_I am_) Em. + 2. Eart. Ert. + 3. Is. Er. + {45} + _Plur._ 1. Synd (Syndon) Erum. + 2. Synd (Syndon) Erudh. + 3. Synd (Syndon) Eru. + + _Indicative. Past._ + _Sing._ 1. W['ae]s Var. + 2. W['ae]re Vart. + 3. W['ae]s Var. + _Plur._ 1. W['ae]ron Vorum. + 2. W['ae]ron Voru. + 3. W['ae]ron Voru. + + _Subjunctive. Present._ + _Sing._ 1. S['y] S['e]. + 2. S['y] S['e]r. + 3. S['y] S['e]. + _Plur._ 1. S['y]n S['e]um. + 2. S['y]n Seudh. + 3. S['y]n S['e]u. + + _Subjunctive. Past._ + _Sing._ 1. W['ae]re Vaeri. + 2. W['ae]re Vaerir. + 3. W['ae]re Vaeri. + _Plur._ 1. W['ae]ron Vaerum. + 2. W['ae]ron Vaeru. + 3. W['ae]ron Vaerudh. + + _Infinitive._ + Wesan Vera. + + _Participle._ + Wesende Verandi. + +s. 90. Recapitulating, we find that the characteristic differences of the +greatest importance between the Icelandic and Saxon are three in number:-- + +1st. The peculiar nature of the definite article. + +2nd. The neuter form of the adjectives in _-t_. + +3rd. The existence of a passive voice in _-sc_, _-st_, or _-s_. + +s. 91. In the previous comparison the substantives were divided as +follows:--1st. into those ending with a vowel; 2ndly, into those ending +with a consonant. In respect to the substantives ending with a vowel +(_e['a]ge_, _nama_, _tunge_), it may have been observed that their cases +were in A. S. almost {46} exclusively formed in _-n_, as _e['a]gan_, +_tungan_, &c.; whilst words like _skip_ and _smidh_ had, throughout their +whole declension, no case formed in _-n_; no case indeed wherein the sound +of _-n_ entered. This enables us (at least with the A. S.) to make a +general assertion concerning the substantives ending in a _vowel_ in +contrast to those ending in a _consonant_, viz. that they take an +inflection in _-n_. + +In Icelandic this inflection in _-n_ is concealed by the fact of _-an_ +having been changed into _-a_. However, as this _-a_ represents _-an_, and +as fragments or rudiments of _-n_ are found in the genitive plurals of the +neuter and feminine genders (_augna_, _tungna_), we may make the same +general assertion in Icelandic that we make in A. S., _viz._ that +substantives ending in a vowel take an inflection in _-n_. + +s. 92. The points of likeness and difference between two languages, +belonging to different _divisions_ of the same Germanic _branch_, may be +partially collected from the following comparison between certain +Moeso-Gothic and certain Anglo-Saxon inflections. + +s. 93. It must, however, be premised, that, although the distinction +between nouns taking an inflection in _-n_, and nouns not so inflected, +exists equally in the Moeso-Gothic and the Icelandic, the form in which the +difference shows itself is different; and along with the indication of this +difference may be introduced the important terms _weak_ and _strong_, as +applied to the declension of nouns. + +_Weak_ nouns end in a vowel; or, if in a consonant, in a consonant that has +become final from the loss of the vowel that originally followed it. They +also form a certain proportion of their oblique cases in _-n_, or an +equivalent to _-n_--Nom. _aug[^o]_, gen. _aug-in-s_. + +_Strong_ nouns end in a consonant; or, if in a vowel, in one of the vowels +allied to the semivowels _y_ or _w_, and through them to the consonants. +They also form their oblique cases by the addition of a simple inflection, +without the insertion of _n_. + +Furthermore, be it observed that _nouns_ in general are _weak_ and +_strong_, in other words, that adjectives are _weak_ or {47} _strong_, as +well as substantives. Between substantives and adjectives, however, there +is this difference:-- + +1. A substantive is _either_ weak or strong, _i.e._, it has one of the two +inflections, but not both. _Aug[^o]_=_an eye_, is weak under all +circumstances; _waurd_=_a word_, is strong under all circumstances. + +2. An adjective is _both_ weak and strong. The Anglo-Saxon for _good_ is +sometimes _god_ (strong), sometimes _gode_ (weak). Which of the two forms +is used depends not on the word itself, but on the state of its +construction. + +In this respect the following two rules are important:-- + +1. The definite sense is generally expressed by the weak form, as _se +blinde man_=_the blind man_. + +2. The indefinite sense is generally expressed by the strong form, as _sum +blind man_=_a blind man_. + +Hence, as far as adjectives are concerned, the words _definite_ and +_indefinite_ coincide with the words _weak_ and _strong_ respectively, +except that the former are terms based on the syntax, the latter terms +based on the etymology of the word to which they apply. + +_Declension of Weak Substantives in Moeso-Gothic._ + + _Neuter._ + + _Singular._ _Plural._ + + _Nom._ ['A]ug[^o] (_an eye_) ['A]ug[^o]na. + _Acc._ ['A]ug[^o] ['A]ug[^o]na. + _Dat._ ['A]ugin ['A]ugam. + _Gen._ ['A]ugins ['A]ug[^o]n[^e]. + + _Masculine._ + + _Nom._ Manna (_a man_) Mannans. + _Acc._ Mannan Mannans. + _Dat._ Mannin Mannam. + _Gen._ Mannins Mannan[^e]. + + _Feminine._ + + _Nom._ Tugg[^o] (_a tongue_) Tugg[^o]ns. + _Acc._ Tugg[^o]n Tugg[^o]ns. + _Dat._ Tugg[^o]n Tugg[^o]m. + _Gen._ Tugg[^o]ns Tugg[^o]n[^o]. + +{48} + +_Declension of Strong Substantives in Moeso-Gothic._ + + _Neuter._ + + _Singular._ _Plural._ + + _Nom._ Va['u]rd (_a word_) Va['u]rda. + _Acc._ Va['u]rd Va['u]rda. + _Dat._ Va['u]rda Va['u]rdam. + _Gen._ Va['u]rdis Va['u]rd[^e]. + + _Masculine._ + + _Nom._ Fisks (_a fish_) Fisk[^o]s. + _Acc._ Fisk Fiskans. + _Dat._ Fiska Fiskam. + _Gen._ Fiskis Fisk[^e]. + + _Feminine._ + + _Nom._ Br[^u]ths (_a bride_) Br[^u]theis. + _Acc._ Br[^u]th Br[^u]thins. + _Dat._ Br[^u]thai Br[^u]thim. + _Gen._ Br[^u]thais Br[^u]th[^e]. + +These may be compared with the Saxon declensions; viz. _a['u]g[^o]_ with +_e['a]ge_, _manna_ with _nama_, _tugg[^o]_ with _tunge_, _va['u]rd_ with +_le['a]f_, _fisks_ with _smidh_, and _br[^u]ths_ with _spraec_. + +_Declension of Weak (or Definite) Adjectives in Moeso-Gothic._[8] + + _Singular._ + + _Neuter._ _Masculine._ _Feminine._ + + _Nom._ Blind[^o] Blinda Blind[^o]. + _Acc._ Blind[^o] Blindan Blind[^o]n. + _Dat._ Blindin Blindin Blind[^o]n. + _Gen._ Blindins Blindins Blind[^o]ns. + + _Plural._ + + _Nom._ Blind[^o]na Blindans Blind[^o]ns. + _Acc._ Blind[^o]na Blindans Blind[^o]ns. + _Dat._ Blindam Blindam Blind[^o]m. + _Gen._ Blind[^o]n[^e] Blindan[^e] Blind[^o]n[^o]. + +{49} + +_Declension of strong (or indefinite) adjectives in Moeso-Gothic._[9] + + _Singular._ + + _Nom._ Blindata Blinds Blinda. + _Acc._ Blindata Blindana Blinda. + _Dat._ Blindamma Blindamma Blind['a]i. + _Gen._ Blindis Blindis Blind['a]iz[^o]s. + + _Plural._ + + _Nom._ Blinda Blind['a]i Blind[^o]s. + _Acc._ Blinda Blindans Blind[^o]s. + _Dat._ Blind['a]im Blind['a]im Blind['a]im. + _Gen._ Blind['a]iz[^e] Blind['a]iz[^e] Blind['a]iz[^o]. + +_Observe_--In the neuter form _blindata_ M. G. we have the sound of _t_, as +in Icelandic. This becomes _z_ (_ts_) in Old High German, and _s_ in modern +German. + +The conjugation of the M. G. is as follows. From the Anglo-Saxon it differs +most in its plural persons. + + _Indicative._ + + M.G. A.S. + + _Present._ + + _Sing._ 1. S[^o]k-ja Lufie. + 2. S[^o]k-eis Lufast. + 3. S[^o]k-eith Lufadh. + _Plur._ 1. S[^o]k-jam Lufiadh. + 2. S[^o]k-eith Lufiadh. + 3. S[^o]k-jand Lufiadh. + + _Praet._ + + _Sing._ 1. S[^o]kida Lufode. + 2. S[^o]kides Lufodest. + 3. S[^o]kida Lufode. + _Plur._ 1. S[^o]kid[^e]dum Lufodon. + 2. S[^o]kid[^e]duth Lufodon. + 3. S[^o]kid[^e]dun Lufodon. + + _Subjunctive._ + + M.G. A.S. + + _Present._ + + _Sing._ 1. S[^o]kj['a]u } + 2. S[^o]kj['a]is } Lufige. + 3. S[^o]kj['a]i } + _Plur._ 1. S[^o]kj['a]ima } + 2. S[^o]kj['a]ith } Lufion. + 3. S[^o]kj['a]ina } + + _Praet._ + + _Sing._ 1. S[^o]kid[^e]dj['a]u } + 2. S[^o]kid[^e]deis } Lufode. + 3. S[^o]kid[^e]di } + _Plur._ 1. S[^o]kid[^e]deima } + 2. S[^o]kid[^e]deith } Lufodon + 3. S[^o]kid[^e]deina } + +The conjugation of the auxiliary verb in Moeso-Gothic is as follows. It may +be compared with the A. S. s. 89. + +{50} + + _Indicative. Pres._ _Subjunctive. Pres._ + + _Sing._ _Plur._ _Sing._ _Plur._ + 1. Im (_I am_) Sijum. 1. Sij['a]u Sij['a]ima. + 2. Is Sijuth. 2. Sij['a]is Sij['a]ith. + 3. Ist Sind. 3. Sij['a]i Sij['a]ina. + + _Praet._ _Praet._ + + 1. Vas V[^e]sum. 1. V[^e]sj['a]u V[^e]seima. + 2. Vast V[^e]suth. 2. V[^e]seis V[^e]seith. + 3. Vas V[^e]sun. 3. V[^e]sei V[^e]seina. + + _Inf._ Visan and Sijan--(_to be_). + + _Part._ Visands--(_being_). + +s. 94. The points of likeness or difference between two languages, each of +the Low Germanic division, may be partially collected from the following +comparison between certain Old Frisian and certain Anglo-Saxon inflections. + +In the comparison the first point to be noticed is the _Transition of +Letters_. + + _['a]_ in Frisian corresponds to _e['a]_ in A. S.; as _d['a]d_, + _r['a]d_, _l['a]s_, _str['a]m_, _b['a]m_, _c['a]p_, _['a]re_, _h['a]p_, + Frisian; _de['a]d_, _re['a]d_, _le['a]s_, _stre['a]m_, _be['a]m_, + _ce['a]p_, _e['a]re_, _he['a]p_, Saxon; _dead_, _red_, _loose_, + _stream_, _tree_ (boom), _bargain_ (cheap, chapman), _ear_, _heap_, + English. + + _['e]_ Frisian corresponds to ^a), the A. S. _['a]_; as _Eth_, + _t['e]ken_, _h['e]l_, _br['e]d_, Fris.; _['a]th_, _t['a]cen_, _h['a]l_, + _br['a]d_, Saxon; _oath_, _token_, _hale_, _broad_, English;--^b), to + A. S. _ae_; _h['e]r_, _d['e]de_, _br['e]da_, Frisian; _haer_, _daed_, + _braedan_, A. S.; _hair_, _deed_, _roast_, English. + + _e_ to _ea_ and _ae_ A. S.--Frisian _thet_, A. S. _thaet_, Engl. + _that_, Fris. _gers_, A. S. _gaers_, Engl. _grass_.--Also to _eo_; + _prestere_, Fr.; _preost_ A. S., _priest_ Engl.; _berch_ Fr., _beorh_ + A. S.; _hill_ (_berg_, as in _iceberg_) Engl.; _melok_ Fr., _meoloc_ A. + S., _milk_ Engl. + + _i_ to _eo_ A. S.--Fr. _irthe_, A. S. _eordhe_; Fris. _hirte_; A. S. + _heorte_; Fris. _fir_ A. S. _feor_=in English _earth_, _heart_, _far_. + + _j['a]_=_eo_ A. S.; as _bjada_, _be['o]dan_, _bid_--_thet fjarde_, + _feordhe_, _the fourth_--_sj['a]k_, _se['o]c_, _sick_. + + _ju_=_y_ or _eo_ A. S.; _rjucht_, _ryth_, _right_--_frjund_, _freond_, + _friend_. {51} + + _Dsz_=A. S. _cg_; Fr. _sedza_, _lidzja_; A. S. _secgan_, _licgan_; + Engl. _to say_, _to lie_. + + _Tz_, _ts_, _sz_, _sth_=A. S. _c_ or _ce_; as _szereke_, or _sthereke_, + Frisian; _cyrice_ A. S., _church_ Engl.; _czetel_ Fr., _cytel_ A. S., + _kettle_ English. + + _ch_ Fr.=_h_ A. S., as _thjach_ Fr., _the['o]h_ A. S., _thigh_ + Engl.--_berch_, _be['o]rh_, _hill_ (berg)--_dochter_, _dohtor_, + _daughter_, &c. + +As a general statement we may say, that in the transition letters the +Frisian corresponds with the A. S. more closely than it does with any other +language. It must, moreover, be remarked, that, in such pairs of words as +_frjund_ and _freond_, the difference (as far at least as the _e_ and _j_ +are concerned) is a mere difference of orthography. Such also is probably +the case with the words _d['e]d_ and _daed_, and many others. + +The Anglo-Saxon inflection of ^a) Substantives ending in a vowel, ^b) +Substantives ending in a consonant, ^c) Adjectives with an indefinite ^d) +Adjectives with a definite sense, ^e) Verbs Active ^f) and verbs auxiliar, +may be seen in the comparison between the A. S. and the Icelandic. The +corresponding inflections in Frisian are as follows:-- + + + (_a_). + + _Substantives ending in a vowel._ + + _Neuter._ _Masculine._ _Feminine._ + + _Sing. Nom._ ['A]re (_an ear_) Campa (_a champion_) Tunge (_a tongue_). + _Acc._ ['A]re Campa Tunga. + _Dat._ ['A]ra Campa Tunga. + _Gen._ ['A]ra Campa Tunga. + _Plur. Nom._ ['A]ra Campa Tunga. + _Acc._ ['A]ra Campa Tunga. + _Dat._ ['A]ron Campon Tungon. + _Gen._ ['A]rona Campona Tungona. + + (_b_). + + _Substantives ending in a consonant._ + + _Neuter._ _Feminine._ + + _Sing. Nom._ Skip (_a ship_) Hond (_a hand_). + _Acc._ Skip Hond. + {52} + _Dat._ Skipe Hond. + _Gen._ Skipis Honde. + _Plur. Nom._ Skipu Honda. + _Acc._ Skipu Honda. + _Dat._ Skipum Hondum (-on). + _Gen._ Skipa Honda. + +With respect to the masculine substantives terminating in a consonant, it +must be observed that in A. S. there are two modes of declension; in one, +the plural ends in _-s_; in the other, in _-a_. The specimen in s. 83 +represents the first of these modes only. From this the Frisian is +essentially different. With the second it has a close alliance; _e.g._:-- + + _Saxon._ _Frisian._ + + _Sing. Nom._ Sunu (_a son_) Sunu. + _Acc._ Sunu Sunu. + _Dat._ Suna Suna. + _Gen._ Suna Suna. + _Plur. Nom._ Suna Suna. + _Acc._ Suna Suna. + _Dat._ Sunum Sunum. + _Gen._ Sunena (Sunena). + + (_c_). + + _Indefinite Declension of Adjectives._ + + _Neuter._ _Masculine._ _Feminine._ + _Sing. Nom._ G['o]d G['o]d G['o]d. + _Acc._ G['o]d G['o]dene G['o]de. + _Dat._ G['o]da (-um) G['o]da (-um). G['o]dere. + _Gen._ G['o]des G['o]des G['o]dere. + _Plur. Nom._ G['o]de G['o]de G['o]de. + _Acc._ G['o]de G['o]de G['o]de. + _Dat._ G['o]dum (-a) G['o]dum (-a) G['o]dum (-a). + _Gen._ G['o]dera G['o]dera G['o]dera. + + (_d_). + + _Definite._ + + _Neuter._ _Masculine._ _Feminine._ + _Sing. Nom._ G['o]de G['o]da G['o]de. + _Acc._ G['o]de G['o]da G['o]da. + {53} + _Dat._ G['o]da G['o]da G['o]da. + _Gen._ G['o]da G['o]da G['o]da. + _Plur. Nom._ G['o]da G['o]da G['o]da. + _Acc._ G['o]da G['o]da G['o]da. + _Dat._ G['o]da (-on) G['o]da (-on) G['o]da (-on). + _Gen._ G['o]da (-ona) G['o]da (-ona) G['o]da (-ona). + + (_e_). + + _The Persons of the Present Tense._ + + _Indicative Mood._ + + _Sing._ 1. Berne _I burn._ + 2. Bernst _Thou burnest._ + 3. Bernth _He burns._ + _Plur._ 1. Bernath _We burn._ + 2. Bernath _Ye burn._ + 3. Bernath _They burn._ + +In the inflection of the verbs there is between the Frisian and A. S. this +important difference. In A. S. the infinite ends in _-an_ _macian_, to +make, _laeran_, to learn, _baernan_, to burn; whilst in Frisian it ends in +_-a_, as _maka_, _l['e]ra_, _berna_. + + (_f_). + + _The Auxiliar Verb_ Wesa, _To Be_. + + _Indicative._ + + _Present._ _Past._ + + _Sing._ 1. Ik ben 1. Ik } + 2. ? 2. Th['u] } Was. + 3. Hi is 3. Hi } + _Plur._ 1. Wi } 1. Wi } + 2. I } Send 2. I } Weron. + 3. Hja } 3. Hja } + + _Subjunctive._ + + _Present._ _Past._ + + _Sing._ 1. 2. 3. Se 1. 2. 3. W['e]re. + _Plur._ 1. 2. 3. Se 1. 2. 3. W['e]re. + _Infin. Wesa._ _Pr. Part._ Wesande. _Past Part._ E-wesen. + +The Frisian numerals (to be compared with those of the Anglo-Saxons, p. +43), are as follows:--_['E]n_, _tw['a]_, _thrj['u]_, {54} _fj['u]wer_, +_f['i]f_, _sex_, _sj['u]gun_, _achta_, _njugun_, _tian_, &c. Of these the +first three take an inflection, e.g., _En_, like _Gode_ and the adjectives, +has both a definite and an indefinite form, _en_, and _thet ene_; whilst +_twa_ and _thrj['u]_ run as follows:--_Nom._ and _Acc. Neut._ twa; _Masc._ +twene; _Fem._ twa; _Dat._ twam; _Gen._ twira.--_Nom._ and _Acc. Neut._ +thrju; _Masc._ thre; _Fem._ thrja; _Dat._ thrim; _Gen._ thrira. + +In respect to the Pronouns, there is in the Old Frisian of Friesland no +dual number, as there is in Anglo-Saxon. On the other hand, however, the +Frisians (whilst they have no such form as _his_) possess, like the +Icelandic, the inflected adjectival pronoun _sin_, corresponding to the +Latin _suus_: whilst, like the Anglo-Saxons, and unlike the Icelanders, +they have nothing to correspond with the Latin _se_. + +s. 95. In Frisian there is between the demonstrative pronoun used as an +article, and the same word used as a demonstrative in the limited sense of +the term, the following difference of declension:-- + +THE ARTICLE. + + _Neuter._ _Masculine._ _Feminine._ + + _Sing. Nom._ Thet Thi Thj['u]. + _Acc._ Thet Thene Th['a]. + \----------\/--------/ + _Dat._ Th['a] There. + _Gen._ Thes There. + \--------------\/-------------/ + _Plur. Nom._ Th['a]. + _Acc._ Th['a]. + _Dat. _ Th['a]. + _Gen._ Th['e]ra. + +PRONOUN. + +_The Demonstrative in the limited sense of the word._ + + _Neuter._ _Masculine._ _Feminine._ + + _Sing. Nom._ Thet Thi Se. + _Acc._ Thet Thene Se. + \---------\/--------/ + _Dat._ Tham There. + _Gen._ Thes There. + \-------------\/---------------/ + {55} + _Plur. Nom._ Se. + _Acc._ Se. + _Dat._ Th['a]m. + _Gen._ Th['e]ra. + +The Saxons draw no such a distinction. With them the article and +demonstrative is declined as follows:-- + + _Neuter._ _Masculine._ _Feminine._ + + _Sing. Nom._ Thaet Se Seo. + _Acc._ Thaet Thone Th['a]. + \-----\/----/ + _Dat._ Tham Th['ae]re. + _Gen._ Thaes Th['ae]re. + \--------\/-------/ + _Plur. Nom._ Th['a]. + _Acc._ Th['a]. + _Dat._ Th['a]m. + _Gen._ Th['a]ra. + +s. 96. _Specimen of Glossarial affinity._--Taken from Rask's Preface to his +Frisian Grammar:-- + + _Frisian._ _Anglo Saxon._ _English._ + + ['A]ge E['a]ge _Eye_. + H['a]ved He['a]fod _Head_. + Kind Cild _Child_. + Erva Eafora _Heir_. + Drochten Drihten _Lord_. + Nacht Niht _Night_. + R['e]d R['ae]d _Council_ (_Rede_). + D['e]de D['ae]d _Deed_. + Nose Nasu _Nose_. + ['E]in ['A]gen _Own_. + K['a]pie Ceapige _I buy_ (_Chapman_). + Dua Don _To do_. + Sl['a] Sle['a]n _Slay_. + Gunga Gangan _Go_ (_Gang_). + + * * * * * + +s. 97. In this Chapter there has been, thus far, an attempt to do two +things at once. Firstly, to exhibit the _general_ likeness between stocks, +branches, &c.; and secondly, to show the _special_ affinities between +certain languages allied to our {56} own, and of the Gothic Stock. What +follows, consists of certain observations upon two or three points of +nomenclature. + +s. 98. _German._--The points to remember concerning this term are-- + +1. That it is no national name, but a name given by the Latins to the +natives of the country called Germania. The word _German_ is foreign to all +the Gothic languages. + +2. That it was first applied to proper Germanic tribes in the time of +Julius Caesar, and that it served to distinguish the Gothic Germans from +the Celtic Gauls. + +3. That, anterior to the time of Caesar, there is no proof of it being +applied as a distinctive designation to any of the tribes to whom it was +afterwards limited. The first tribe to whom it was applied, was (in the +opinion of the present writer) a Gallic tribe. + +4. That since the time of Julius Caesar, its application has been constant, +_i.e._, it has always meant Gothic tribes, or Gothic languages. + +5. That sometimes it has been general to the whole nation--_Unde fit ut +tantae populorum multitudines arctoo sub axe oriantur, ut non immerito +universa illa regio Tanai tenus usque ad occiduum, licet et propriis loca +ea singula nuncupentur nominibus, generali tamen vocabulo Germania +vocitetur ... Gothi, siquidem, Vandalique, Rugi, Heruli, atque Turcilingi, +necnon etiam aliae feroces ac barbarae nationes e Germania +prodierunt._--Paulus Diaconus. + +6. That sometimes it has been peculiar and distinctive to certain prominent +portions of the nation--_equi fraenis_ Germanicis, _sellis_ Saxonicis +_falerati_. + +7. That the general power of the word has been, with few exceptions, +limited to the Germans of Germany. We do not find either English or +Scandinavian writers calling their countrymen _Germani_. + +8. That the two German tribes most generally meant, when the word _German_ +is used in a limited sense, are the Franks and the Alemanni. + +9. That by a similar latitude the words _Francic_ and {57} _Alemannic_ have +been occasionally used as synonymous with _Germanic_. + +10. That the origin of the word _Germani_, in the Latin language, is a +point upon which there are two hypotheses. + +_a._ That it is connected with the Latin word _Germani_=_brothers_, meaning +either tribes akin to one another, or tribes in a degree of _brotherly_ +alliance with Rome. + +_b._ That it grew out of some such German word as _Herman_, _Irmin_, +_Wehrmann_, or the _Herm-_ in _Hermunduri_, _Hermiones_, &c. + +Neither of these views satisfies the present writer. + +For all the facts concerning the word _Germani_, see the Introduction to +the third edition of the Deutsche Grammar. + +s. 99. _Dutch._--For the purposes of Philology the meaning given to this +word is inconvenient. In England, it means the language of the people of +Holland. + +In Germany, Holland, and Scandinavia, it means the language of the people +of Germany in _general_; and this _general_ power of the word is retained +even with us in the expression High-Dutch, and Low-Dutch. In the present +work the term is avoided as much as possible. Nevertheless, wherever it +occurs it means the Dutch of Holland. + +The origin of the word has been a subject of much investigation; the +question, however, may be considered to be settled by the remarks of Grimm, +D. G.--_Introduction to the third edition_. + +1. It was originally no national name at all. + +2. In the earliest passage where it occurs, the derivative form +_thiudisk[^o]_ corresponds with the Greek word [Greek: ethnikos]--_The +Moeso-Gothic Translation of the New Testament_--_Galatians_, ii. 14. + +3. The derivation of the word from the substantive _thiudu_=_a people_, _a +nation_, is undoubted. + +4. So also is the derivation of the modern word _Dutch_, in all its varied +forms:--Old High-German, _Diutisc_; Anglo-Saxon, _The['o]disc_; Latin, +_Theodisca_, _Theudisca_, _Teutisca_; Italian, _Tedesco_; Danish, _Tyske_; +English, _Dutch_; the latter part of the word being the adjectival ending +_-isc_=_ish_. {58} + +5. The original meaning being _of, or belonging to, the people_, or _of, or +belonging to, the nation_, secondary meanings grew out of it. + +6. Of these the most remarkable are _a_) the power given to the word in +Ulphilas (_heathen_), illustrated by the similarly secondary power of the +Greek [Greek: ethnikos]; _b_) the meaning _vernacular_, _provincial_ or +_vulgar_ given to it as applied to language. + +7. This latter power was probably given to it about the ninth century. + +8. That it was not given much before, is inferred from negative evidence. +The word _theotisca_ is not found in the Latin writers of the sixth, +seventh, and eighth centuries, although there are plenty of passages where +it might well have been used had it existed. The terms really used are +either _patrius sermo_, _sermo barbaricus_, _sermo vulgaricus_, _lingua +rustica_; or else the names of particular tribes, as _lingua Anglorum_, +_Alamannorum_. + +9. That it was current in the ninth century is evident from a variety of +quotations:--_Ut quilibet episcopus homilias aperte transferre studeat in +rusticam Romanam linguam, aut _theotiscam_, quo tandem cuncti possint +intelligere quae dicantur._--Synodus Turonensis. _Quod in lingua +_Thiudisca_ scaftlegi, id est armorum depositio, vocatur._--Capit. +Wormatiense. _De collectis quas _Theudisca_ lingua heriszuph +appellat._--Conventus Silvacensis. _Si _barbara_, quam _Teutiscam_ dicunt, +lingua loqueretur._--Vita Adalhardi, &c.--D.G., i. p. 14, _Introduction_. + +10. That its present national sense is wholly secondary and derivative, and +that originally it was no more the name of a people or a language than the +word _vulgate_ in the expression _the vulgate translation of the +Scriptures_ is the name of a people or a language. + +s. 100. _Teutonic._--About the tenth century the Latin writers upon German +affairs began to use not only the words _Theotiscus_ and _Theotisc['e]_, +but also the words _Teutonicus_ and _Teutonic['e]_. Upon this, Grimm +remarks that the latter term sounded more learned; since _Teutonicus_ was a +classical word, an adjective derived from the Gentile name of the Teutones +conquered by Manus. Be it so. It then follows that the connexion between +_Teutonicus_ and _Theotiscus_ is a mere accident, the origin {59} of the +two words being different. The worthlessness of all evidence concerning the +Germanic origin of the Teutonic tribes conquered by Marius, based upon the +connexion between the word _Teuton_ and Dutch, has been pointed out by the +present writer in the 17th number of the Philological Transactions.[10] All +that is proved is this, _viz._, that out of the confusion between the two +words arose a confusion between the two nations. These last may or may not +have been of the same race. + +s. 101. _Anglo-Saxon_--In the ninth century the language of England was +_Angle_, or _English_. The _lingua Anglorum_ of Bede is translated by +Alfred _on englisce_. The term _Saxon_ was in use also at an early (perhaps +an equally early) date--_fures quos_ Saxonice _dicimus vergeld_ the['o]vas. +The compound term _Anglo-Saxon_ is later.--Grimm, _Introduction to the +third edition of_ D.G., p. 2. + +s. 102. _Icelandic, Old Norse._--Although _Icelandic_ is the usual name for +the mother-tongue of the Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian, the Norwegian +philologists generally prefer the term _Old Norse_. + +In favour of this view is the fact that Norway was the mother-country, +Iceland the colony, and that much of what is called Old Icelandic was +composed in Norway. + +Still the reason is insufficient; since the present term _Icelandic_ is +given to the language not because Iceland _was_ the country that +_produced_, but because it is the country that has _preserved_ it. + +This leads to the argument in its most general form--should a language be +named from the colony, or from the mother-country? The Norwegians say from +the mother-country. Let us consider this. + +Suppose that whilst the Latin of Virgil and Cicero in Italy had been +changing into the modern Italian, in some old Roman colony (say Sardinia) +it had remained either wholly {60} unaltered, or else, altered so little as +for the modern _Sardinian_--provided he could read at all--to be able to +read the authors of the Augustan age, just like those of the era of Charles +Albert; no other portion of the old Roman territory--not even Rome +itself--having any tongue more like to that of the Classical writers, than +the most antiquated dialect of the present Italian. Suppose, too, that the +term _Latin_ had become obsolete, would it be imperative upon us to call +the language of the Classics _Old Italian_, _Old Roman_, or at least _Old +Latin_, when no modern native of Rome, Latium, or Italy could read them? +Would it be wrong to call it _Sardinian_ when every Sarde _could_ read +them? I think not. _Mutatis mutandis_, this is the case with Iceland and +Norway. + + * * * * * + + +{61} + +CHAPTER V. + +ANALYSIS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE--GERMANIC ELEMENTS. + +s. 103. The population and, to a certain extent, the language of England, +have been formed of three elements, which in the most general way may be +expressed as follows:-- + +_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. 104. Each of these requires a special analysis, but that of the second +will be taken first, and will 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 wholly or partially occupied, +and the tribes and nations with which they were conterminous whilst in +Germany. How far, however, it was simple Saxons who conquered England +single-handed, or how far the particular Saxon Germans were portions of a +complex population, requires further investigation. Were the Saxons one +division of the German population, whilst the Angles were another? or were +the Angles a section of the Saxons, so that the latter was a generic term, +including the former? Again, although the Saxon invasion may be the one +which has had the greatest influence, and drawn the most attention, why may +there not have been separate and independent migrations, the effects and +record of which, have in the lapse of time, become fused with those of the +more important divisions? + +Questions like these require notice, and in a more advanced state of what +may be called _minute ethnographical_ {62} _philology_ will obtain more of +it than has hitherto been their share. At present our facts are few, and +our methods of investigation imperfect. + +s. 105. In respect to this last, it is necessary to distinguish between the +opinions based on _external_, and the opinions based on _internal_ +evidence. To the former class belong the testimonies of cotemporary +records, or (wanting these) of records based upon transmitted, but +cotemporary, evidence. To the latter belong the inferences drawn from +similarity of language, name, and other ethnological _data_. Of such, a +portion only will be considered in the present chapter; not that they have +no proper place in it, but because the minuter investigation of an +important section of these (_i.e._, the subject of the _English dialects_) +will be treated as a separate subject elsewhere. + +s. 106. _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=_the 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 definitude and +preponderance are not so manifest in Germany as we infer (from the terms +_England_ and _English_) it to have been in Britain. Nay more, their +historical place amongst the nations of Germany, and within the German +area, is both insignificant and doubtful; 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. The following, however, are the chief facts that form the +foundation for our inferences. + +s. 107. 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 {63} name by +which the present English are known to the Welsh, Armorican, and Gaelic +Celts. + + Welsh _Saxon_. + Armorican _Soson_. + Gaelic _Sassenach_. + +s. 108. 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 +trans-marinae_, occurs as applied to England. + +s. 109. Although they are the section of the immigration which gave the +name to _England_, &c., the material notice of them as Germans of Germany, +are limited to the following facts. + +_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."[11] + +_Extract from Ptolemy._--This connects the Angles with {64} 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. 129. + +_Heading of a law referred to the age of Charlemagne._--This connects them +with the Werini (Varni), and the Thuringians--"Incipit lex _Angliorum_ et +_Verinorum_ (_Varni_); hoc est _Thuringorum_."--Zeuss, 495, and Grimm. +G.D.S. + +s. 110. These notices agree in giving the Angles a German locality, and in +connecting them ethnologically, and philologically with the Germans of +Germany. The notices that follow, traverse this view of the question, by +indicating a slightly different area, and Danish rather than German +affinities. + +_Extracts connecting them with the inhabitants of the Cimbric +Peninsula._--_a._ The quotation from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle of s. 16. + +_b._ From Bede; "Porro de Anglis, hoc est illa patria, quae _Angulus_ +dicitur, et ab eo tempore usque hodie, manere desertus inter provincias +Jutarum et Saxonum perhibetur."--Angl. i. 15. + +_c._ From Alfred, "And be waestan eald Seaxum is Albe mudha thaere ea and +Frisland. And thanon west nordh is thaet land, the man _Angle_, haet and +Sillende, and summe dael Dena."[12]--Oros. p. 20. + +Also, speaking of Other's voyage,[13] "He seglode to thaem porte the man +haet Haethum; se stent betwuhs Winedum and Seaxum, and _Angle_, and hyrdh +in on Dene ... and tha {65} twegen dagas aer he to Haedhum come, him waes +on thaet steorbord Gothland and Sillende and iglanda fela. On thaem landum +eardodon Engle, aer hi hidher on land comon."[14]--Oros. p. 23. + +d. From Etherwerd, writing in the eleventh century--"_Anglia_ vetus sita +est inter Saxones et Giotos, habens oppidum capitale, quod sermone Saxonico +_Sleswic_ nuncupatur, secundum vero Danos _Hathaby_."[14] + +s. 111. _The district called Angle._--The district of _Anglen_, so called +(where it is mentioned at all) at the present moment, is a part of the +Dutchy of Sleswick, which is literally an _Angle_; _i.e._, a triangle of +irregular shape, formed by the Schlie, the Flensborger Fiord, and a line +drawn from Flensborg to Sleswick; every geographical name in it being, at +present, Danish, whatever it may have been previously. Thus some villages +end in _bye_ (Danish=_town_) as Hus-_bye_, Herreds-_bye_, Ulse-_bye_, &c.; +some in _gaard_ (=_house_), as _Oegaard_; whilst the other Danish forms are +_skov_=_wood_ (_shaw_), _hofved_=_head_, _lund_=_grove_, &c. In short it +has nothing to distinguish it from the other parts of the peninsula. + +s. 112. Add to these the Danish expression, that _Dan_ and _Angul_ were +brothers, as the exponent of a recognised relationship between the two +populations, and we have a view of the evidence in favour of the Danish +affinity. + +s. 113. _Inferences and remarks._--_a._ That whilst the root _Angl-_ in +Tacitus, Ptolemy, Procopius, and the Leges Anglorum, &c., is the name of a +_people_, the root _Angl-_ in the _Anglen_ of Sleswick, is the name of a +district; a fact which is further confirmed by the circumstance of there +being in at least one other part of Scandinavia, a district with a similar +name--"Hann ['a]tti bu a Halogolandi i _Aungli_."[14]--Heimskringla, iii. +454. + +_b._ That the derivation of the _Angles_ of England from the _Anglen_ of +Sleswick is an inference of the same kind with the one respecting the Jutes +(see s. 20), made by the same writers, probably on the same principle, and +most likely incorrectly. + +_c._ That the Angles of England were the Angli of Tacitus, {66} Ptolemy, +Procopius, and the Leges Anglorum et Werinorum, whatever these were. + +s. 114. What were the _Langobardi_, with whom the Angles were connected by +Tacitus? The most important facts to be known concerning them are, (1) that +the general opinion is in favour of their having belonged to the +_High_-German, or Moeso-Gothic division, rather than to the _Low_; (2) that +their original locality either reached or lay beyond the Elbe; a locality, +which, in the tenth century, was _Slavonic_, and which, in the opinion of +the present writer, we have no reason to consider to have been other than +Slavonic during the nine preceding ones.--That they were partially, at +least, on this side of the Elbe, we learn from the following:--"Receptae +Cauchorum nationes, fracti Langobardi, gens etiam Germanis feritate +ferocior; denique usque ad flumen Albim ... Romanus cum signis perductus +exercitus."[15]--Velleius Paterc. ii. 106. + +s. 115. What were the _Suevi_, with whom the Angles were connected by +Tacitus? The most important facts to be known concerning them are, (1) that +the general opinion is in favour of their having belonged to the +_High_-German or Moeso-Gothic, division, rather than to the _Low_; (2) that +their original locality either reached or lay beyond the Elbe; a locality, +which, in the tenth century, was _Slavonic_, and which, in the opinion of +the present writer, we have no reason to consider to have been other than +Slavonic during the nine preceding ones. In other words, what applies to +the Langobardi applies to the Suevi also. + +What the Suevi were, the Semnones were also, "Vetustissimos se +nobilissimosque Suevorum Semnones memorant." Tac. Germ., 39. Speaking, too, +of their great extension, he says, _centum pagi ab iis habitantur_.[15] + +Velleius states that there were Suevi on the west of the Middle Elbe, +Ptolemy, that there were Suevi to the east of it, _i.e._, as far as the +River Suebus (Oder?).--[Greek: Kai to ton Souebon ton Semnonon, hoitines +diekousi meta ton Albin apo tou eiremenou merous] {67} (the middle Elbe) +[Greek: pros anatolas mechri tou Souebou potamou].[16] + +In the letter of Theodeberht to the Emperor Justinian, we find the +_North_-Suevians mentioned along with the Thuringians, as having been +conquered by the Franks; "Subactis Thuringis ... _Norsavorum_ gentis nobis +placata majestas colla subdidit."[16] + +s. 116. 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 in favour of their +being Slavonic in locality, the same facts as applied to the Suevi and +Langobardi, with the additional one, that the name probably exists at +present in the River _Warnow_, of Mecklenburg Schwerin, at the mouth of +which (Warnemunde) the town of Rostock stands. + +s. 117. What were the _Thuringians_, with whom the Angles are connected in +the _Leges Anglorum_, &c.; Germanic in locality, and most probably allied +to the Goths of Moesia in language. + +s. 118. Of the Reudigni, Eudoses, Nuithones, Suardones, and Aviones, too +little is known in detail to make the details an inquiry of importance. +Respecting them all, it may be said at once, that whatever may be the +Germanic affinities involved in their connection with the Suevi, +Langobardi, Angli, &c., they are traversed by the fact of their locality +being in the tenth century Slavonic. + +s. 119. The last tribe which will be mentioned, is that of the _Angrarii_, +most probably another form of the _Angrivarii_ of Tacitus, the name of the +occupants of the valley of the Aller, the northern confluent of the Weser. + +As this word is compound (-_varii_=_ware_=_inhabitants_), the root remains +_Angr-_, a word which only requires the _r_ to become _l_ in order to make +_Angl-_. As both the locality and the relation to the Saxons, make the +_Angrivarian_ locality one of the best we could assume for the _Angles_, +the only {68} difficulty lies in the change from _r_ to _l_. Unfortunately, +this, in the Saxon-German, is an unlikely one. + +s. 120. The last fact connected with the Angles, will be found in a more +expanded form in the Chapter on the Dialects of the English Language. It +relates to the distribution over the conquered parts of Britain. Their +chief area was the Midland and Eastern counties, Norfolk, Suffolk, +Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, Leicestershire, &c., rather than the parts +south of the Thames, which were Saxon, and those north of the Wash, where +Danish influences have been considerable. + +s. 121. 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_ Varni, +Eudoses, Suardones, &c.; 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 _Angle_ and Saxon, 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. 122. By considering the Angles as Saxons under another name (or _vice +vers[^a]_), and by treating the statement as to the existence of Jutes in +Hampshire and the Isle of Wight as wholly unhistorical, we get, as a +general expression for the Anglo-Germanic immigration, that it consisted of +the closely allied tribes of the North-Saxon area, an expression that +implies a general uniformity of population. Is there reason to think that +the uniformity was absolute? + +s. 123. The following series of facts, when put together, will prepare us +for a fresh train of reasoning concerning the different geographical and +ethnological relations of the {69} immigrants into England, during their +previous habitation in Germany. + +1. The termination _-as_ is, like the _-s_ in the modern English, the sign +of the plural number in Anglo-Saxon. + +2. The termination _-ing_ denotes, _in the first instance_, a certain +number of individuals collected together, and united with each other as a +clan, tribe, family, household. + +3. In doing this, it generally indicates a relationship of a _personal_ or +_political_ character. Thus two _Baningas_ might be connected with each +other, and (as such) indicated by the same term from any of the following +causes--relationship, subordination to the same chief, origin from the same +locality, &c. + +4. Of these _personal_ connections, the one which is considered to be the +commonest is that of _descent_ from a common ancestor, so that the +termination _-ing_ in this case, is a real _patronymic_. + +5. Such an ancestor need not be real; indeed, he rarely if ever is so. Like +the _eponymus_ of the classical writers, he is the hypothetical, or +mythological, progenitor of the clan, sept, or tribe, as the case may be; +_i.e._, as Aeolus, Dorus, and Ion to the Aeolians, Dorians, and Ionians. + +Now, by admitting these facts without limitation, and by applying them +freely and boldly to the Germanic population of England, we arrive at the +following inferences. + +1. That where we meet two (or more) households, families, tribes, clans, or +septs of the same name (that name ending in _-ing_), in different parts of +England, we may connect them with each other, either directly or +indirectly; directly when we look on the second as an offset from the +first; indirectly, when we derive both from some third source. + +2. That when we find families, tribes, &c., of the same name, both in +Britain and in Germany, we may derive the English ones from the +continental. + +Now neither of these views is hypothetical. On the contrary each is a real +fact. Thus in respect to divisions of the population, designated by names +ending in _-ing_, we have + +1. In Essex, Somerset, and Sussex,--_Aestingas_. + +2. In Kent, Dorset, Devonshire, and Lincoln,--_Alingas_. {70} + +3. In Sussex, Berks, and Northamptonshire,--_Ardingas_. + +4. In Devonshire, Gloucestershire, and Sussex,--_Arlingas_. + +5. In Herts, Kent, Lincolnshire, and Salop,--_Baningas_. + +6. In Norfolk, Suffolk, Surrey, Sussex, and the Isle of +Wight,--_Beadingas_. + +7. In Kent, Devonshire, Lincolnshire, Herefordshire, Salop, and +Somerset,--_Beringas_. + +8. In Bedford, Durham, Kent, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, +Northamptonshire, Northumberland, Salop, Sussex, and the Isle of +Wight,--_Billingas_, &c.--the list being taken from Mr. Kemble, vol. i. p. +64. + +s. 124. On the other hand, the following Anglo-Saxon names in _-ing_, +reappear in different parts of Germany, sometimes in definite geographical +localities, as the occupants of particular districts, sometimes as +mentioned in poems without further notice. + +1. _Waelsingas_,--as the Volsungar of the Iceland, and the Waelsingen of +the German heroic legends. + +2. _Herelingas_,--mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon poem known by the name of +the Traveller's Song, containing a long list of the Gothic tribes, +families, nations, &c. + +3. _Brentingas._--Ibid. + +4. _Scyldingas._--Ibid. + +5. _Scylfingas._--Ibid. + +6. _Ardingas._ + +7. _Baningas_, Traveller's Song, mentioned as the subjects of Becca. + +8. _Helsingas._--Ibid. + +9. _Myrgingas._--Ibid. + +10. _Hundingas._--Ibid. + +11. _Hocingas._--Ibid. + +12. _Seringas._--Ibid. + +13. _Dhyringas_=Thuringians. (?) + +14. _Bleccingas._ + +15. _Gytingas._ + +16. _Scydingas._ + +17. _Dylingas._ + +s. 125. We will still, for argument's sake, and for the sake {71} of the +illustration of an ethnological method, take these names along with the +observations by which they were preceded, as if they were wholly +unexceptionable; and, having done this, ask how far each is known as +_German_. So doing, we must make two divisions: + +_a._ Those which we have no reason to think other than Angle or Saxon. + +_b._ Those which indicate elements of the migration other than Angle or +Saxon. + +s. 126. _Patronymics which do not necessarily denote a non-Saxon +element._--Of these, the following are so little known, that they may pass +as Saxons, simply because we have no grounds for thinking them aught else; +the Brentings, Banings, Helsings, Serings, Ardings, Hundings, Blekings, +Herelings, Gytings, Scydings, Dylings. The Scyldings and Scefings, belong, +in a more positive way, to the Anglo-Saxon division; since their eponymi, +Scyld and Sceaf, form a portion of the Anglo-Saxon mythology. + +s. 127. _Patronymics indicating a non-Saxon, rather than a Saxon +element._--_a._ The Waelsings--In the way of tradition and mythology, this +is a _Frank_ gentile name. + +_b._ The Myrgings.--_Ditto._ This is the German form of the Merovingians. + +_c._ The Hocings.--This is the German form of the Chauci, and, as such, a +Frisian gentile name. + +d. The Dhyrings.--Perhaps Thuringians of Thuringia. + +Thus, then, if we still assume that the method in question is +unexceptionable, we have, from the evidence of what may be called either +the _gentile forms_, or the _patronymics_ in _-ing_, reasons for believing +that Frank _Myrgings_, Frisian _Hocings_, and Thuringian _Dhyrings_, formed +part of the invasion--these, at least; possibly others besides. + +And why should the reason be other than unexceptionable? Do we not in North +America, believe, that, _as a general rule_, the families with particular +names, coincide with the families so-called in England; that the names of +certain places, _sometimes_, at least, indicate a population originating in +places similarly designated here? that the Smiths and Johnstons {72} are +English in origin, and that O'Connors and O'Neils are Irish? We certainly +believe all this, and, in many cases, we believe it, on the ground of the +identity of name only. + +s. 128. _Exceptions._--Still there are exceptions. Of these the most +important are as follows:-- + +1. The termination _-ing_ is sometimes added to an undoubtedly British +root, so as to have originated within the island, rather than to have been +brought from the continent, _e.g._, the _Kent-ings_=_the people of Kent_. +In such a case, the similarity to a German name, if it exist at all, exists +as an accident. + +2. The same, or nearly the same, name may not only occur in different parts +of one and the same division of the Germanic areas, but in different ones, +_e.g._, the Dhyrings _may_ denote the Thuringians of Thuringia; but they +may also denote the people of a district, or town, in Belgium, designated +as _Dorringen_.[17] + +Still as a method, the one in question should be understood; although it +has been too short a time before the learned world to have borne fruit. + +N.B.--What applies to the coincidence of _gentile_ or _patronymic_ names on +the two sides of the water, applies also to dialects; _e.g._, if (say) the +Kentish differed from the other dialects of England, just in the same way, +and with the same peculiar words and forms, as (say) the Verden dialect +differed from the ones of Germany, we might fairly argue, that it was from +the district of Verden that the county of Kent is peopled. At present we +are writing simply for the sake of illustrating certain philological +methods. The question of dialect will be treated in Part VII. + +s. 129. _German tribes where there is no direct evidence as to their having +made part of the population of England, but where the _[`a] priori_ +probabilities are strongly in their favour._ This applies to--_a._ The +Batavians. No direct evidence, but great _[`a] priori_ probability. + +_b._ _The Frisians._--Great _[`a] priori_ probability, and {73} something +more; [Greek: Brittian de ten neson ethne tria poluanthropotata echousi, +basileus te heis 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].[18]--Procop. B. G. iv. 20. + +s. 130. I believe, for my own part, there were portions in the early +Germanic population of Britain, which were not strictly either Angle or +Saxon (Anglo-Saxon); but I do this without thinking that it bore any great +ratio to the remainder, and without even guessing at what that ratio was, +or whereabouts its different component elements were located--the Frisians +and Batavians being the most probable. With this view, there may have been +Jutes as well; notwithstanding what has been said in ss. 16-20; since the +reasoning there is not so against a Jute element _in toto_, as against that +particular Jute element, in which Beda, Alfred, and the later writers +believed and believe. + +s. 131. No exception against the existence of Batavian, Frisian, Frank, and +other elements not strictly Anglo-Saxon, is to be taken from the absence of +traces of such in the present language, and that for the following reason. +_Languages which differ in an older form may so far change according to a +common principle, as to become identical in a newer one._ _E.g._, the +Frisian infinitive in verbs ends in _-a_, (as _baerna_=_to burn_), the +Saxon in _-an_ (as _baernan_=_to burn_). Here is a difference. Let, +however, the same change affect both languages; that change being the +abandonment, on both sides, of the infinitive termination altogether. What +follows? even that the two originally different forms _baern-a_, and +_baern-an_, both come out _baern_ (_burn_); so that the result is the same, +though the original forms were different. + + * * * * * + + +{74} + +CHAPTER VI. + +THE CELTIC STOCK OF LANGUAGES, AND THEIR RELATIONS TO THE ENGLISH. + +s. 132. 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. + +SPECIMENS. + +BRITISH. + +_The Lord's Prayer in Cornish._ + + _Old Cornish._ + + An Taz, ny es yn n[^e]f, bethens thy hannow ughelles, gwr[^e]nz doz thy + gulas ker: bethens thy voth gwr[^a]z yn oar kepare hag yn n[^e]f: ro + thyn ny hithow agan peb dyth bara; gava thyn ny ny agan cam, kepare ha + gava ny neb es cam ma erbyn ny; nyn homfrek ny en antel, mez gwyth ny + the worth drok: rag gans te yn an mighterneth, and creveder, hag an' + worryans, byz a venitha. + + _Modern Cornish._ + + Agan Taz, leb ez en n[^e]v, benigas beth de hanno, gurra de gulasketh + deaz, de voth beth gwr[^e]z en' oar pokar en n[^e]v; ro dony hithow + agan pyb dyth bara; ha gava do ny agan cabmow, pokara ny gava an gy leb + es cam mo war bidn ny; ha na dege ny en antail, brez gwitha ny dort + droge; rag an mychteyrneth ew chee do honnen, ha an cr[^e]vder, ha an + 'worryans, rag bisqueth ha bisqueth. + +{75} + +_Welsh_ (Cambrian). + +_Luke_ XV. 11. 19. + +_The Prodigal Son._ + + 11. Yr oedd gan ryw wr ddau fab: + + 12. A 'r jeuangaf o honynt a ddwedoddwrth _ei_ d[^a]dd, Fy nh[^a]d, + dyro i mi y rhan a ddigwydd o 'r da. Ac efe a ranodd iddynt _ei_ fywyd. + + 13. Ac yn [^o]l ychydig ddyddiau y m[^a]b jeuangaf a gasglodd y cwbl + ynghyd, ac a gymmerth ei daith i wl[^a]d bell; ac yno efe a wasgarodd + ei dda, gan fyw yn affrallon. + + 14. Ac wedi iddo dreulio 'r cwbl, y cododd newyn mawr trwy 'r wl[^a]d + honno; ac yntef a ddechreuodd fod mewn eisiau. + + 15. Ac efe a aeth, ac a lynodd wrth un o ddinaswyr y wl[^a]d honno; ac + efe a 'i hanfonodd ef i 'w faefydd i borthi m[^o]ch. + + 16. Ac efe a chwennychai lenwi ei fol [^a] 'r cibaua fwytai 'r m[^o]ch; + ac ni roddodd neb iddo. + + 17. A phan ddaeth arto ei hur, efe addywedodd, Pa sawl gw[^a]s cyflog o + 'r eiddo fy nh[^a]d sydd yn cael eu gwala a 'i gweddill o fara, a + minnau yn marw o newyn! + + 18. Mi a godaf, ac a [^a]f at fy nh[^a]d, ac a ddwyedaf wrtho, Fy + nh[^a]d, pechais yn erbyn y nef, ac o'th flaen dithau. + + 19. Ac mwyach nid ydwyf deilwng i 'm galw yn f[^a]b i ti: gwna si fel + un o'th weision cyflog. + +_Armorican of Bas-Bretagne_ (Cambrian). + +THE SAME. + + 11. Eunn d['e]n en doa daou vab. + + 12. Hag ar iaouanka an['e]zh[^o] a lavaraz d'he d[^a]d.--Va z[^a]d, ro + d'in al l[^o]den zanvez a zigou['e]z d'in. Hag h['e]n a rannaz h['e] + zanvez gant ho. + + 13. Hag eunn n['e]be[^u]d derv['e]siou goud['e], ar m[^a]b iaounka, + [^o] v['e]za dastumet k['e]mend en doa en em l['e]k['e]az enn hent + ['e]vit mond ['e]tr['e]z['e]g eur vr[^o] bell me[^u]rbe['a], hag + ['e]n[^o] ['e] tispinaz h['e] zanvez [^o] v['e]va gant gad['e]lez. + + 14. Ha pa en do['e] dispinet k['e]mend en doa, ['e] c'hoarv['e]zaz eunn + naoun['e]gez vr[^a]z er vr[^o]-ze, hag ['e] te[^u]az, da + ['e]zomm['e]kaat. + + 15. Ku[^i]d ['e]z ['e]az eta, hag en em lakaad a r['e]az ['e] g['o]pr + gand eunn d['e]n e[^u]z ar vro. Hag h['e] man hen kasaz enn eunn ti + d'['e]zhan war ar m['e]az, ['e]vit mesa ar m[^o]c'h. + + 16. C'hoant['e]ed en divije le[^u]na he g['o]f gand ar c'hlosou a + zebr['e] ar m[^o]c'h: ha d['e]n na r[^o]['e] d'['e]zhan. + + 17. H[^o]gen [^o] veza distr[^o]ed d'ezhan h['e] unar, ['e] lavaraz: a + b['e]d g[^o]praer zo ['e] ti va z[^a]d hag en de[^u]z bara ['e] leiz, + ha m['e] a varv aman gand ann naoun! + + {76} 18. S['e]vet a rinn, hag ['e]z inn ['e]tr['e]z['e] va zad, hag + ['e] livirinn d'ezhan: Va z[^a]d, pech 'ed em euz a eneb ann env hag + enu da enep. + + 19. N'ounn k['e]t talvoudek pello 'ch da v['e]za galved da v[^a]b: Va + zig['e]mer ['e]vel unar euz da c'h[^o]praerien. + +GAELIC. + +_Irish Gaelic_ (Gaelic). + +THE SAME. + + 11. Do bh['a]dar di['a]s mac ag duine ['a]irighe: + + 12. Agus a dubhairt an ti dob ['o]ige aca re _na_ athair, Athair, + tabhair dhamh an chuid roitheas _misi_ dod mha['o]in. Agus do roim + seision a mhaoin eatorra. + + 13. Agus tar ['e]is bheag['a]in aimsire ag cruinniughadh a choda uile + don mhac dob ['o]ige, do ch['u]aidh s['e] air coigcrigh a dtalamh + imchian, agus do dhiombail se ann sin a mha['o]in l['e] na bheathaidh + b['a]oth-chaithfigh. + + 14. Agus tar ['e]is a choda uile do chaitheamh dho, deirigh gorta + romh['o]r ann sa t['i]r sin; agus do thosaigh seision ar bheith a + r['i]achdanus. + + 15. Agus do imthigh s['e] roimhe agus do cheangal s['e] e f['e]in do + ch['a]thruightheoir don t['i]r sin; noch do chuir f['a] na dh['u]ichte + a mach ['e] do bh['u]achuilleachd muc. + + 16. Agus b['a] mhi['a]n leis a bholg do l['i]noadh do na + f['e]ithl['e]oguibh do ithid['i]s na muca: agus n['i] thugadh + ['e]unduine dh['o] ['i]ad. + + 17. Agus an tan do chuimhnigh s['e] air f['e]in, a dubhairt s['e], + G['a] mh['e]d do luchd tuarasdail matharsa aga bhf['u]il iomarcdid + ar['a]in, agus misi ag dul a m['u]ghd l['e] gorta! + + 18. E['i]r['e]ochaidh m['e] agus rachaidh m['e] dionnsuighe mathair, + agus de['a]ruidh me ris; A athair! do pheacaid m['e] a naghaidh neimhe + agusad fh['i]adhnuisisi. + + 19. Agus n['i] fi['u] m['e] feasda do mhacsa do ghairm dhoim: d['e]ana + m['e] mar ['a]on dod luchd thuarasduil. + +_Scotch Gaelic_ (Gaelic). + +THE SAME. + + 11. Bha aig duine [`a]raidh dithis mhac: + + 12. Agus thubhairt _mac_ a b'[`o]ige dhiubh r' _a athair_, Athair, + thoir dhomhsa chuid-roim a thig _orm_, do _d_ mhaoin. Agus roinn e + eatorra a bheathacahadh. + + 13. Agus an d['e]igh beagain do l['a]ithibh, chruinnich am mac a + b'[`o]ige a chuid uile, agus ghabh e a thurus do dh[`u]thaich fad air + astar, agus an sin chaith e a mhaoin le beatha struidheasaich. + + 14. Agus an uair achaith e a _chuid_ uile, dh' ['e]irich gorta ro + mh[`o]r san t['i]r sin; agus thoisich e ri bhi ann an uireasbhuidh. + + 15. Agus chaidh e agus cheangail se e f['e]in ri aon do shaor-dhaoinibh + na d[`u]cha sin: agus chuir ed' fhearan e, a bhiadhadh mhuc. + + {77} 16. Agus bu mhiann leis a bhr['u] a li[`o]nadh do na plaosgaibh a + bha na mucan ag itheadh; oir cha d' thug neach air bith dha. + + 17. Agus un uair a thainig e chuige f['e]in, thubhairt e, Cia l[`i]on + do luchd tuarasdail m'atharsa aig am bheil aran gu leoir agus r' a + sheach-nadh, 'nuair a ta mise a' b[`a]sachadh le gorta! + + 18. Eiridh me, agus th['e]id omi dh' ionnsuidh m' athar, agus their mi + ris athair, pheaeaich mi 'n aghaidh fhlaitheanais, agus a' d' l[`a] + thairsa. + + 19. Agus cha 'n fhiu mi tuilleadh gu 'n goirte do mhacsa dhiom: deon mi + mar aon do d' luchd tuarasdail. + +_Manks_ (Gaelic). + +THE SAME. + + 11. Va daa vac ec dooinney dy row: + + 12. As doort y fer saa rish e ayr; Ayr! cur dooys yh ayrn dy chooid ta + my chour. As rheynn eh e chooid orroo. + + 13. As laghyn ny lurg shen, hymsee yn mac saa ooilley cooidjagh as ghow + eh jurnah gys cheer foddey, as ayns shen hug he jummal er e chooid + liorish baghey rouanagh. + + 14. As tra va ooilley baarit eihey, dirree genney vooar ayns y cheer + shen; as ren eh toshiaght dy ve ayns feme. + + 15. As hie eh as daill eh eh-hene rish cummaltagh jeh'n cheer shen; as + hug eshyn eh magh gys ny magheryn echey dy ve son bochilley muickey. + + 16. As by-vian lesh e volg y lhieeney lesh ny bleaystyn va ny muckyn dy + ee: as cha row dooinney erbee hug eooney da. + + 17. As tra v'eh er jeet huggey hene, dooyrt eh, Nagh nhimmey sharvaant + failt t'ee my ayr ta nyn saie arran oe, as fooilliagh, as ta mish goll + mow laecal beaghey! + + 18. Trog-ym orrym, as hem roym gys my ayr, as jir-ym rish, Ayr! ta mee + er n'yannoo peecah noi niau, as kiongoyrt rhyt's. + + 19. As cha vel mee ny-sodjey feeu dy ve enmyssit dty vac: dell rhym myr + rish fer jeh dty harvaantyr failt. + +s. 133. 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 {78} +the Celtic tongues are preeminently uninflected in the way of _declension_. + +s. 134.--2. _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 inflexion +in the process of formation, and (as such) exhibiting an early stage of +language. + +s. 135. _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_. + + Gw[^a]s, _a servant_. + + 1. _form_, Gw[^a]s fydhlon, _a faithful servant_. + 2. Ei w[^a]s, _his servant_. + {79} + 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. Eivam, _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. 136. When we have seen that one of the great characteristics of the +Celtic tongues is to express inflection by initial changes, we may ask how +far the principle of such change is common to the two branches--British or +Gaelic; this and a few other details being quite sufficient to show the +affinity between them. + +_Inflections formed by Changes of Initial Consonants._ + +The changes in Welsh, classified according to the relationship of the +sounds are-- + +1. From the sharp lenes to the corresponding flats; as _p_ to _b_, _t_ to +_d_, _c_ to _g_. The changes in Irish are the same. + +2. From the flat lenes to their corresponding so-called aspirates; as _b_ +to _v_, _d_ to _dh_. This is the change in Welsh. In Irish we have the +same, but only as far as _b_ is concerned; the aspirate of _d_ (_dh_) being +wanting in that language. In neither Welsh nor Irish occurs the true +aspirate of _g_. In neither Welsh nor Irish occurs the true aspirate of +_c_; which, being wanting, is replaced by the sound of the _ch_ in the +German _auch_, here spelt _c_. + +Now the Welsh grammarians deal with the changes from sharp to flat, and +from lene to aspirate, alike; since, in respect to the grammar of their +language, they are enabled to state that they take place under the same +circumstances. {80} Taken collectively they are called light: and words +wherein _p_ is changed to _b_, and those wherein _b_ is changed to _v_, are +equally said to assume the light sound. This the Welsh express in spelling, +and write _ben_ for _pen_, and _vraint_ for _braint_, &c. In Irish the +arrangement is different. When a so-called aspirate is substituted for a +lene, the word is said to take an aspiration, and _bheul_ is written +_beul_. If, however, the sharp be made flat, the original sound is said to +be eclipsed. In spelling, however, it is preserved; so that _teine_, with +the _t_ changed, is written _dteine_, and pronounced _deine_. With this +view we can now ask how far the change from _p_ to _b_, _t_ to _d_, _c_ to +_g_, _b_ to _v_, _c_ to _c_, takes place in Irish and Welsh under similar +circumstances. + +In _Welsh_--after all verbs, except those of the infinitive mood; as +_caravi gaer_ (for _caer_)=_I love a fort_. + +In _Irish_--after all verbs, provided that the substantive be masculine; as +_ta me ag gearrad crainn_=_I am cutting (at to cut) a tree_. Here _crainn_ +comes from _crainn_. This change in Irish extends only to the change from +lene to aspirate. + +In _Welsh_--after the possessive pronouns _thy_, _thine_, _his_, _its_, +_mine_ (but not _my_); as _dy v[^a]r_ (for _b[^a]r_)=_thy wrath_; _ei +vraint_ (from _braint_)=_his privilege_. _N. B._ Although the same word +(_ei_) means _her_, _his_, and _its_, it induces the light change only when +it is either masculine or neuter. + +In _Irish_--after the possessive pronouns _my_, _thy_, and _his_. Here the +change is of the first sort only, or an aspiration; as _mo v[`a]s_ +(_b[`a]s_)=_my death_; _do cos_ (_cos_)=_thy foot_; _ceann_ (_ceann_)=_his +head_. _N. B._ Although the same word (_a_) means _her_, _his_, and _its_, +it induces the aspirate only when it is either masculine or neuter. + +In _Welsh_--the initials of adjectives become light when their substantive +is feminine. + +In _Irish_--the initials of adjectives singular, aspirated in the oblique +cases only of the masculine, are aspirated throughout in the feminine. + +In _Welsh_--after certain adverbs called formative, used like the English +words _to_, _as_, &c., in the formation of the degrees of nouns, and the +moods of verbs (in other words, {81} after certain particles), initial +sounds become light; as _rhy vycan_ (_bycan_)=_very_ (_over_) _little_; _ni +carav_ (_carav_)=_I do not love_. + +In _Irish_--the same, in respect to the change from lene to aspirate; _ro +veag_=_very little_; _ni vualim_ (_bualim_)=_I do not beat_; _do +vuaileas_=_I struck_, &c. + +In _Welsh_--initials are light after all prepositions except _in_ and +_towards_. + +In _Irish_--the prepositions either eclipse the noun that they govern or +else aspirate it. A Welsh grammarian would say that it made them light. + +In _Welsh_--initials of feminines become light after the Articles. + +In _Irish_--masculines are aspirated in the genitive and dative singular; +feminines in the nominative and dative. _N.B._ The difference here is less +than it appears to be. The masculine dative is changed, not as a masculine, +but by the effect of the particle _do_, the sign of the dative; the +genitive, perhaps, is changed _ob differentiam_. This being the fact, the +nominative is the only case that is changed _as such_. Now this is done +with the feminines only. The inflection explains this. + + _Masc._ _Fem._ + + _Nom._ an crann=_the tree_. _Nom._ an cos=_the foot_. + _Gen._ an crainn. _Gen._ an cos. + _Dat._ don crann. _Dat._ don cos. + _Acc._ an crainn. _Acc._ an cos. + +Such the changes from sharp to flat, and from lene to aspirate. The second +order of changes is remarkable, _viz._ from the mutes to their +corresponding liquids, and, in the case of series _k_, to _ng_. This, in +Welsh, is as follows:-- + + _Sharp._ _Flat._ + + _p_ to [19]_m=h_. _b_ to _m_. + _t_ to [19]_n=h_. _d_ to _n_. + _k_ to _ng=h_. _g_ to _ng_. + +_e.g._, _nheyrnas_ for _teyrnas_, _ngherdh_ for _cerdh_, _nuw_ for _duw_, +&c. + +{82} + +In Irish the combinations _m_ + _h_, _n_ + _h_, _ng_ + _h_ are wanting: +_t_, however, under certain conditions, becomes _h_, as _mo high_ +(_tigh_)=_my house_. With the unaspirated liquids the change, however, +coincides with that of the Welsh--_ar maile_ (spelt _mbaile_)=_our town_; +_ar nia_ (spelt _ndia_)=_our God_; _ar ngearran_=_our complaint_. These +words come respectively from _baile_, _dia_, _gearran_. To show that this +change takes place in Irish and Welsh under similar circumstances is more +than can be expected; since _dh_ being wanting in Irish, leaves _d_ to be +changed into _n_. + +_Inflections formed by changes in the middle of words_. + +_Plurals from Singulars_. + + _Welsh._ _Irish._ + + _Singular._ _Plural._ _Singular._ _Plural._ + + Aber = _a conflux_; ebyr. Ball = _a spot_; baill. + Bardh = _a bard_; beirdh. Cnoc = _a hill_; cnoic. + Br[`a]n = _a crow_; brain. Poll = _a pit_; poil. + Fon = _a staff_; fyn Fonn = _a tune_; foinn. + Maen = _a stone_; mein. Crann = _a tree_; crainn. + G[^u]r = _a man_; g[^u]yr. Fear = _a man_; fir. + &c. &c. + +_Inflections formed by addition._ + +_Plural forms._--When not expressed by a change of vowel, _-d_ (or an +allied sound) both in Welsh and Irish has a plural power; as _merc_, +_merced_; _hydh_, _hydhodh_; _teyrn_, _teyrnedh_=_girls_, _stags_, _kings_; +Welsh:--_gealac_, _gealacad_; _sgolog_, _sgolagad_; _uiseog_, +_uiseogad_=_moons_, _farmers_, _larks_; Irish. In each language there are +plural forms in _-d_. + +Also in _-n_, as _dyn_=_a person_, _dynion_=_persons_. In Irish there is +the form _cu_=_a greyhound_; Plural _cuin_. It may be doubted, however, +whether _-n_ is not ejected in the singular rather than added in the +plural. + +Also in _-au_, Welsh (as _p['e]n-au_=_heads_), and in _-a_, Irish (as +_cos-a_=_feet_). + +In each language there is, in respect to both case and {83} gender, an +equal paucity of inflections. The Irish, however, preserves the +Indo-European dative plural in _b_; as _cos-aiv_=ped-_ibus_. + +The ordinals in Welsh are expressed by _-ved_; as _saith_=_seven_, +_seithved_=_seventh_. The ordinals in Irish are expressed by _-vad_, as +_seact_=_seven_, _seact-vad_=_seventh_ (spelt _seachmhadh_). + +The terminations _-n_ and _-g_ are diminutive in Welsh; as +_dyn-yn_=_mannikin_, _oen-ig_=_lambkin_. They have the same power in Irish; +as _cnoc-an_=_a hillock_; _duil-eog_=_a leaflet_. In Irish, currently +spoken, there is no inflection for the comparative degrees;--there is, +however, an obsolete form in _-d_, as _glass_, _glaiside_=_green_, +_greener_. In Welsh the true comparative ends in _c_, as _main_=_slender_, +_mainac_=_more slender_. A form, however, exists in _-ed_, meaning +equality, and so implying comparison, _viz._, _mein-ed_=_so slender_. + +As expressive of an agent, the termination _-r_ is common to both +languages. Welsh, _mor-[^u]r_=_a seaman_; _telynaur_=_a harpist_; Irish, +_sealg-aire_=_a hunter_; _figead-oir_=_a weaver_. + +As expressive of "abounding in," the termination _-c_ (or _-g_) is common +in both languages. Welsh, _boli[^u]ag_=_abounding in belly_; +_toirteac_=_abounding in fruit_. In each language a sound of series _t_, is +equivalent to the English _-ly_. Welsh, _mab-aidh_=_boy-like_. Irish, +_duin-eata_=_manly_. + +Of the personal terminations it may be said, that those of both the Irish +and Welsh are those of the other European tongues, and that they coincide +and differ in the same way with those of the Gothic stock: the form in _m_ +being the one more constant. For the theory of the personal terminations, +the reader is referred to the Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations, by Dr. +Prichard. + +The present notices being indicative of grammatical affinities only, the +glossarial points of likeness between the Welsh and Irish are omitted. + +s. 137. The Celtic tongues have lately received especial illustration from +the researches of Mr. Garnett. Amongst other, the two following points are +particularly investigated by him:-- {84} + +1. The affinities of the ancient language of Gaul. + +2. The affinities of the Pictish language or dialect. + +s. 138. _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, +_peaer_=_four_, and _rhod_=_a wheel_. The Gaelic for _four_ is _ceathair_, +and the Gaelic compound would have been different. + +_b._ _Pempedula_, the _cinque-foil_, from the Welsh _pump_=_five_, and +_dalen_=_a leaf_. The Gaelic for _five_ is _cuig_, and the Gaelic compound +would have been different. + +_c._ _Candetum_=a measure of 100 feet, from the Welsh _cant_=100. The +Gaelic for _a hundred_ is _cead_, and the Gaelic compound would have been +different. + +d. _Epona_=_the goddess of horses_. In the Old Armorican the root +_ep_=_horse_. The Gaelic for a horse is _each_. + +_e._ The evidence from the names of geographical localities in Gaul, both +ancient and modern, goes the same way: _Nantuates_, _Nantouin_, _Nanteuil_, +are derived from the Welsh _nant_=_a valley_, a word unknown in Gaelic. + +_f._ The evidence of certain French provincial words, which are Welsh and +Armorican rather than Erse or Gaelic. + +_g._ An inscription on an ancient Celtic tablet found at Paris, A.D. 1711, +and representing a bull and three birds (cranes), is TARWOS TRI GARANOS. +Now, for the first two names, the Gaelic affords as good an explanation as +the Welsh; the third, however, is best explained by the Welsh. + + _Bull_ = _tarw_, Welsh; _tarbh_, Gaelic. + _Three_ = _tri_, Welsh; _tre_, Gaelic. + _Crane_ = _garan_, Welsh; _corr_, Gaelic. + +s. 139. _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. Columba preached, whose mother-tongue was Irish Gaelic, he +used an interpreter--_Adamnanus apud {85} Colgarum_, 1, 11, c.32. This is a +point of external evidence, and shows the _difference_ between the Pict and +Gaelic. What follows are points of internal evidence, and show 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 not only more +Celtic than Gothic, but more Welsh than Gaelic. _Taran_=_thunder_ in Welsh. +_Uven_ is the Welsh _Owen_. The first syllable in _Talorg_ (=_forehead_) is +the _tal_ in _Talhaiarn_=_iron forehead_, _Taliessin_=_splendid forehead_, +Welsh names. _Wrgust_ is nearer to the Welsh _Gwrgust_ than to the Irish +_Fergus_. Finally, _Drust_, _Drostan_, _Wrad_, _Necton_, closely resemble +the Welsh _Trwst_, _Trwstan_, _Gwriad_, _Nwython_. _Cineod_ and _Domhnall_ +(_Kenneth_ and _Donnell_), are the only true Erse forms in the list. + +_c._ The only Pictish common name extant is the well-known compound _pen +val_, which is in the oldest MS. of Bede _peann fahel_. This means _caput +valli_, and is the name for the eastern termination of the Vallum of +Antoninus. Herein _pen_ is unequivocally Welsh, meaning _head_. It is an +impossible form in Gaelic. _Fal_, on the other hand, is apparently Gaelic, +the Welsh for a _rampart_ being _gwall_. _Fal_, however, occurs in Welsh +also, and means _inclosure_. + +The evidence just indicated is rendered nearly conclusive by an +interpolation, apparently of the twelfth century, of the Durham MS. of +Nennius, whereby it is stated that the spot in question was called in +Gaelic _Cenail_. Now Cenail is the modern name _Kinneil_, and it is also a +Gaelic translation of the Pict _pen val_, since _cean_ is the Gaelic for +_head_, and _fhail_ for _rampart_ or _wall_. If the older form were Gaelic, +the substitution, or translation, would have been superfluous. + +d. The name of the _Ochil Hills_ in Perthshire is better explained from the +Pict _uchel_=_high_, than from the Gaelic _uasal_. + +_e._ Bryneich, the British form of the province Bernicia, is better +explained by the Welsh _bryn_=_ridge_ (_hilly country_), than by any word +in Gaelic.--Garnett, in _Transactions of Philological Society_. + + * * * * * + + +{86} + +CHAPTER VII. + +THE ANGLO-NORMAN, AND THE LANGUAGES OF THE CLASSICAL STOCK. + +s. 140. 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 +or Hellenic branch of the Classical stock. + +The Latin in all its dialects, the old Italian languages allied to it, and +the modern tongues derived from the Roman, constitute the Latin or Ausonian +branch of the Classical stock. + +Now, although the Greek or Hellenic dialects are of secondary importance in +the illustration of the history of the English language, the Latin or +Ausonian elements require a special consideration. + +The French element appeared in our language as a result of the battle of +Hastings (A.D. 1066), _perhaps, in a slight degree, at a somewhat earlier +period_. + +s. 141. Previous to the notice of the immediate relations of the +Norman-French, or, as it was called after its introduction into England, +Anglo-Norman, its position in respect to the other languages derived from +the Latin may be exhibited. + +The Latin language overspread the greater part of the Roman empire. It +supplanted a multiplicity of aboriginal languages; just as the English of +North America _has_ supplanted the aboriginal tongues of the native +Indians, and just as the Russian _is_ supplanting those of Siberia and +Kamskatcha. + +Sometimes the war that the Romans carried on against the old inhabitants +was a war of extermination. In this case the original language was +superseded _at once_. In other cases their influence was introduced +gradually. In this case the influence of the original language was greater +and more permanent. {87} + +Just as in the United States the English came in contact with an American, +whilst in New Holland it comes in contact with an Australian language, so +was the Latin language of Rome engrafted, sometimes on a Celtic, sometimes +on a Gothic, and sometimes on some other stock. The nature of the original +language must always be borne in mind. + +From Italy, its original seat, the Latin was extended in the following +chronological order:-- + +1. To the Spanish Peninsula; where it overlaid or was engrafted on +languages allied to the present Biscayan (_i.e._, languages of the Iberic +stock), mixed in a degree (scarcely determinable) with Celtic +elements=Celtiberic. + +2. To Gaul, or France, where it overlaid or was engrafted on languages of +the Celtic stock. This took place, at least for the more extreme parts of +Gaul, in the time of Julius Caesar; for the more contiguous parts, in the +earlier ages of the Republic. + +3. To Dacia and Pannonia; where it overlaid or was engrafted on a language +the stock whereof is undetermined. The introduction of the Latin into Dacia +and Pannonia took place in the time of Trajan. + +From (1stly,) the original Latin of Italy, and from the imported Latin, of +(2ndly,) the Spanish Peninsula, (3rdly,) Gaul, (4thly,) Dacia and Pannonia, +we have (amongst others) the following modern languages--1st Italian, 2nd +Spanish and Portuguese, 3rd French, 4th Wallachian. How far these languages +differ from each other is currently known. _One_ essential cause of this +difference is the difference of the original language upon which the Latin +was engrafted. + +s. 142. I am not doing too much for the sake of system if I classify the +languages, of which the Italian, French, &c., are the representatives, as +the languages of Germany were classified, _viz._, into divisions. + +I. The Spanish and Portuguese are sufficiently like the Italian to be +arranged in a single division. This may conveniently be called the +Hesperian division. + +II. The second division is the Transalpine. This comprises the languages of +Gaul, _viz._, the Modern French, the {88} Anglo-Norman, and the Provencal. +It also includes a language not yet mentioned, the Romanese (_Rumonsch_), +or the language of the Grisons, or Graubuenten, of Switzerland. + +_Specimen of the Romanese_. + + _Luke_ XV. 11. + + 11. Uen Hum veva dus Filgs: + + 12. Ad ilg juven 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.'" + +III. The third division is the Dacian, Pannonian, or Wallachian, containing +the present languages of Wallachia and Moldavia. + +In the _Jahrbuecher der Literatur_, June, 1829, specimens are given of two +of its dialects: 1, the Daco-Wallachian, north of the Danube; 2, the +Macedono-Wallachian, south of the Danube. The present specimen varies from +both. It is taken from the New Testament, printed at Smyrna, 1838. The +Dacian division is marked by placing the article after the noun, as +_homul_=_the man_=_homo ille_. + + _Luke_ XV. 11. + + 11. Un om avea 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]. + + {89} 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 carinide 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 mic[)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] t[)i]. + +s. 143. 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 languages of the Transalpine division require to be more +minutely exhibited. + +Between the provincial French of the north and the provincial French of the +south, there is a difference, at the present day, at least of dialect, and +perhaps of language. This is shown by the following specimens: the first +from the canton of Arras, on the confines of Flanders; the second, from the +department of Var, in Provence. The date of each is A.D. 1807. + +I. + + _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'chou qui + doueo me 'r'v'nir ed vous bien," et leu 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 oyant 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'mainchouait 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] {90} mi reven de vouastr['e] ben;" lou paeir['e] faguet + lou partag['e] de tout ce que pouss['e]davo. + + 13. Paou de 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 dins un paeis fourco + luench, ount['e] dissip['e]t tout soun ben en debaucho. + + 14. Quand agu['e]t ton aecaba, 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 each into the other, the Loire may be considered +as a line of demarcation between two languages; the term language being +employed because, in the Middle Ages, whatever may be their real +difference, the northern tongue and the southern tongue were dealt with not +as separate dialects, but as distinct languages--the southern being called +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. + +It is in the Southern French (Provencal, Langue d'Oc, or Limousin) that we +have the following specimen, _viz_., the Oath of Ludwig, sworn A.D. 842. + +_The Oath of the King._ + + Pro Deo amur et pro Xristian poblo et nostro commun salvament, d'ist di + en avant, in quant Deus savir et podir me dunat, si salvarai eo cist + meon fradre Karlo, et in ajudha et in cadhuna cosa, si cum om per dreit + son fradra salvar dist, in o quid il mi altresi fazet: et ab Ludher nul + plaid nunquam prindrai qui, meon vol, cist meon fradre Karle in damno + sit. + +_The Oath of the People._ + + Si Loduuigs sagrament, que son fradre Karlo jurat, conservat; et + Karlus, meos sendra, de suo part non lo stanit; si io returnar non + l'int pois, ne io, ne neuls cui eo returnar int pois, in nulla ajudha + contra Lodhuwig num li iver. + +_The same in Modern French._ + + Pour de Dieu l'amour et pour du Chr[^e]tien peuple et le notre commun + salut, de ce jour en avant, en quant que Dieu savoir et pouvoir me + donne {91} assur['e]ment sauverai moi ce mon fr[`e]re Charles, et en + aide, et en chacune chose, ainsi comme homme par droit son fr[`e]re + sauver doit, en cela que lui [`a] moi pareillement fera: et avec + Lothaire nul trait['e] ne onques prendrai qui, [`a] mon vouloir, [`a] + ce mien fr[`e]re Charles en dommage soit. + + * * * * * + + Si Louis le serment, qu'[`a] son fr[`e]re Charles il jure, conserve; + Charles, mon seigneur, de sa part ne le maintient; si je d['e]tourner + ne l'en puis, ni moi, ne nul que je d['e]tourner en puis, en nulle aide + contre Louis ne lui irai. + +s. 144. 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. + +It is the Norman-French that most especially bears upon the history of the +English language. + +The proportion of the original Celtic in the present languages of France +has still to be determined. It may, however, be safely asserted, that at a +certain epoch between the first and fifth centuries, the language of Gaul +was more Roman and less Celtic than that of Britain. + +SPECIMEN. + +_From the Anglo-Norman Poem of Charlemagne._ + + Un jur fu 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 demeines 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 humc nul de desuz ceil + Tant ben s['e]ist esp['e]e ne la corone el chef? + Uncore cunquerrei-jo citez ot mun espeez." + Cele ne fud pas sage, folement respondeit: + {92} + "Emperere," dist-ele, trop vus poez preiser. + "Uncore en sa-jo on 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; their language being _High_-Germanic. The High-Germanic +element in French has still to be determined. + +In the northern French of _Normandy_ there is a second Gothic element, +_viz._, a Scandinavian element. By this the proper northern French +underwent a further modification. + +Until the time of the Scandinavians or Northmen, the present province of +Normandy was called Neustria. A generation before the Norman Conquest, a +Norwegian captain, named in his own country _Rolf_, and in France _Rollo_, +or _Rou_, settled upon the coast of Normandy. What Hengist and the Germans +are supposed to have been in Britain, Rollo and his Scandinavians were in +France. The province took from them its name of Normandy. The _Norwegian_ +element in the Norman-French has yet to be determined. Respecting it, +however, the following statements may, even in the present state of the +question, be made:-- + +1. That a Norse dialect was spoken in Normandy at Bayeux, some time after +the battle of Hastings. + +2. That William the Conqueror understood the Norse language. + +3. That the names Jersey, Guernsey, and Alderney are as truly Norse names +as Orkney and Shetland. + + * * * * * + + +{93} + +CHAPTER VIII. + +THE POSITION OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE AS INDO-EUROPEAN. + +s. 145. In each of the three preceding chapters a separate stock of +languages has been considered; and it has been shown, in some degree, how +far languages of the same stock differ from, or agree with, each other. + +Furthermore, in each stock there has been some particular language that +especially illustrates the English. + +In the Gothic stock there has been the Anglo-Saxon; in the Celtic the +Welsh; and in the Classical the Anglo-Norman. + +Nevertheless, the importance of the languages of these three divisions is +by no means equal. The Gothic tongues supply the basis of our +investigations. The Celtic afford a few remnants of that language which the +Anglo-Saxon superseded. The Anglo-Norman language exhibits certain +superadded elements. + +s. 146. Over and above the Gothic, Celtic, and Classical languages, there +are others that illustrate the English; and some of our commonest +grammatical inflections can be but half understood unless we go beyond the +groups already enumerated. + +The Gothic, Celtic (?),[20] and Classical stocks are but subordinate +divisions of a wider class. Each has a sufficient amount of mutual +affinities to be illustrative of each other, and each is contained, along +with two other groups of equal value, under a higher denomination in +philology. + +What is the nature of that affinity which connects languages so different +as the Gothic, Celtic (?), and Classical stocks? or what is the amount of +likeness between, _e.g._, the {94} German and Portuguese, the Greek and +Islandic, the Latin and Swedish, the Anglo-Saxon and Italian? And what +other languages are so connected? + +What other philological groups are connected with each other, and with the +languages already noticed, by the same affinities which connect the Gothic, +Celtic (?), and Classical stocks? Whatever these languages may be, it is +nearly certain that they will be necessary, on some point or other, for the +full illustration of the English. + +As both these questions are points of general, rather than of English, +philology, and as a partial answer may be got to the first from attention +to the degree in which the body of the present work exhibits illustrations +drawn from widely different languages, the following statements are +considered sufficient. + +s. 147. The philological denomination of the class which contains the +Gothic, Celtic (?), and Classical divisions, and, along with the languages +contained therein, all others similarly allied, is _Indo-European_; so that +the Gothic, Celtic (?), Classical and certain other languages are +Indo-European. + +All Indo-European languages illustrate each other. + +The other divisions of the great Indo-European group of languages are as +follows:-- + +1. The Iranian stock of languages.--This contains the proper Persian +languages of Persia (Iran) in all their stages, the Kurd language, and all +the languages of Asia (whatever they may be) derived from the Zend or +Sanskrit. + +2. The Sarmatian stock of languages.--This contains the languages of +Russia, Poland, Bohemia, and of the Slavonian tribes in general. It +contains also the Lithuanic languages, _i.e._, the Lithuanic of Lithuania, +the old Prussian of Prussia (now extinct), and the Lettish or Livonic of +Courland and Livonia. + +3, 4, 5. The Classical, Gothic, and Celtic (?) stocks complete the +catalogue of languages undoubtedly Indo-European, and at the same time they +explain the import of the term. Indo-European is the name of a class which +embraces the majority of the languages of _Europe_, and is extended over +{95} Asia as far as _India._ Until the Celtic was shown by Dr. Prichard to +have certain affinities with the Latin, Greek, Slavonic, Lithuanic, Gothic, +Sanskrit, and Zend, as those tongues had with each other, the class in +question was called Indo-_Germanic_; since, up to that time, the Germanic +languages had formed its western limit. + + * * * * * + +s. 148. _Meaning of the note of interrogation (?) after the word +Celtic._--In a paper read before the Ethnological Society, February 28th, +1849, and published in the Edinburgh Philosophical Magazine, the present +writer has given reasons for considering the claims of the Celtic to be +Indo-European as somewhat doubtful; at the same time he admits, and highly +values, all the facts in favour of its being so, which are to be found in +Prichard's Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations. + +He believes, however, that the Celtic can only be brought in the same group +with the Gothic, Slavonic, &c., by _extending_ the value of the class. + +"To draw an illustration from the common ties of relationship, as between +man and man, it is clear that a family may be enlarged in two ways. + +"_a._ A brother, or a cousin, may be discovered, of which the existence was +previously unknown. Herein the family is enlarged, or increased, by the +_real_ addition of a new member, in a recognised degree of relationship. + +"_b._ A degree of relationship previously unrecognised may be recognised, +_i.e._, a family wherein it was previously considered that a +second-cousinship was as much as could be admitted within its pale, may +incorporate third, fourth, or fifth cousins. Here the family is enlarged, +or increased, by a _verbal_ extension of the term. + +"Now it is believed that the distinction between increase by the way of +real addition, and increase by the way of verbal extension, has not been +sufficiently attended to. Yet, that it should be more closely attended to, +is evident; since, in mistaking a verbal increase for a real one, the whole +end and aim of classification is overlooked. The publication of Dr. +Prichard's Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations, in 1831, {96} supplied +philologists with the most definite addition that has perhaps, yet been +made to ethnographical philology. + +"Ever since then the Celtic has been considered to be Indo-European. Indeed +its position in the same group with the Iranian, Classical, +Slavono-Lithuanic, and Gothic tongues, supplied the reason for substituting +the term Indo-_European_ for the previous one Indo-_Germanic_. + +"On the other hand, it seems necessary to admit that _languages are allied +just in proportion as they were separated from the mother-tongue in the +same stage of its development_. + +"If so, the Celtic became detached anterior _to the evolution of the +declension of nouns_, whereas the Gothic, Slavonic, Classical and Iranian +languages all separated _subsequent to that stage_."[21] + +This, along with other reasons indicated elsewhere,[22] induces the present +writer to admit an affinity between the Celtic and the other so-called +Indo-European tongues, but to deny that it is the same affinity which +connects the Iranian, Classical, Gothic and Slavonic groups. + + * * * * * + + +{97} + +PART II. + +HISTORY AND ANALYSIS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. + +-------- + +CHAPTER I. + +HISTORICAL AND LOGICAL ELEMENTS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. + +s. 149. 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. Such are (amongst others) the words +_flannel_, _crowd_ (a fiddle), from the Cambrian; and _kerne_ (an Irish +foot-soldier), _galore_ (enough), _tartan_, _plaid_, &c., from the Gaelic +branch. + +2. Those that are common to both the Celtic and Gothic stocks, and are +Indo-European rather than either Welsh, or Gaelic, or Saxon. Such (amongst +others) are _brother_, _mother_, in Celtic _brathair_, _mathair_; the +numerals, &c. + +3. Those that have come to us from the Celtic, but have come to us through +the medium of another language. Such are _druid_ and _bard_, whose +_immediate_ source is, not the Celtic but, the Latin. + +4. Celtic elements of the Anglo-Norman, introduced into England after the +Conquest, and occurring in that language as remains of the original Celtic +of Gaul. + +5. Those that have been retained from the original Celtic of the island, +and which form genuine constituents of our language. These fall into three +subdivisions. + +_a._ Proper names--generally of geographical localities; as _the Thames_, +_Kent_, &c. {98} + +_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 _Crock_, _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_. + Rhasg (slice) _Rasher_. + Rhuwch _Rug_. + Sawduriaw _Solder_. + Syth (glue) _Size_. + Tacl _Tackle_. + +s. 150. _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. 151. _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. 152. _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 {99} in these invasions. Not that the Swedes were less +piratical, but that they robbed elsewhere,--in Russia, for instance, and in +Finland. + +The language of the three nations was the same; the differences being +differences of dialect. It was that which is now spoken in Iceland, having +been once common to Scandinavia and Denmark. Whether this was aboriginal in +_Denmark_, is uncertain. In _Scandinavia_ it was imported; the tongue that +it supplanted having been, in all probability, the mother-tongue of the +present Laplandic. + +The Danish that became incorporated with our language, under the reign of +Canute and his sons, may be called the direct Danish (Norse or +Scandinavian) element, in contradistinction to the indirect Danish of ss. +144, 155. + +The determination of the amount of Danish in English is difficult. It is +not difficult to prove a word _Scandinavian_. We must also show that it is +not German. A few years back the current opinion was against the doctrine +that there was much Danish in England. At present, the tendency is rather +the other way. The following facts are from Mr. Garnett.--Phil. Trans. Vol. +i. + +1. The Saxon name of the present town of _Whitby_ in Yorkshire was +_Streoneshalch_. The present name _Whitby_, _Hvitby_, or _White-town_, is +Danish. + +2. The Saxon name of the capital of Derbyshire was _Northweortheg_. The +present name is Danish. + +3. The termination _-by_=_town_ is Norse. + +4. On a monument in Aldburgh church, Holdernesse, in the East Riding of +Yorkshire, referred to the age of Edward the Confessor, is found the +following inscription:-- + + _Ulf_ het 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 {100} 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_ Br[oa]as, _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. 153. _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_, pumice-stone, _pumex_. +{101} + +The above-given list is from Guest's English Rhythms (B. iii. c. 3). It +constitutes that portion of the elements of our language which may be +called the Latin of the second, or Saxon period. + +s. 154. _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.--See Ranouard, _Journal des Savans_, 1830. + +The chief Anglo-Norman elements of our language are the terms connected +with the feudal system, the terms relating to war and chivalry, and a great +portion of the law terms--_duke_, _count_, _baron_, _villain_, _service_, +_chivalry_, _warrant_, _esquire_, _challenge_, _domain_, &c. + +s. 155. The Norwegian, Danish, Norse, or Scandinavian element of the +Anglo-Norman (as in the proper names _Guernsey_, _Jersey_, _Alderney_, and +perhaps others) constitutes the _indirect_ Scandinavian element of the +English. + +s. 156. _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 with the monks, 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. {102} + +_Latin of the Fourth Period._--This means the Latin which has been +introduced between the revival of literature and the present time. It has +originated in the writings of learned men in general, and is distinguished +from that of the previous periods by-- + +1. Being less altered in form-- + +2. Preserving, in the case of substantives, in many cases its original +inflections; _axis_, _axes_; _basis_, _bases_-- + +3. Relating to objects and ideas for which the increase of the range of +science in general has required a nomenclature. + +s. 157. _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; thus 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. 158. The Latin of the fourth period and the Greek agree in retaining, in +many cases, the Latin or Greek inflexions rather than adopting the English +ones; in other words, they agree in being but _imperfectly incorporated_. +The phaenomenon of imperfect incorporation (an important one) 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 {103} adjectives like _circular_, and the +tenses, &c. for verbs, like perambulate. + +s. 159. 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_ | Schirrh_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_ + {104} + 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_ succedanea. + 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_ apic_es_ + Appendix -- appendic-_s_ appendic_es_ + Calix -- calic-_s_ calic_es_ + Cicatrix -- cicatric-_s_ cicatric_es_ + Helix -- helic-_s_ helic_es_ + Index -- indec-_s_ indic_es_ + Radix -- radic-_s_ radic_es_ + Vertex -- vertec-_s_ vertic_es_ + Vortex -- vortec-_s_ vortic_es_. + +In all these words the _c_ of the singular number is sounded as _k_, of the +plural as _s_. + +s. 160. 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._ + + Apheli_on_ apheli_a_ + Periheli_on_ periheli_a_ + Automat_on_ automat_a_ + Criteri_on_ criteri_a_ + Ephemer_on_ ephemer_a_ + Phaenomen_on_ phaenomen_a_. + +{105} + +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[23] + +s. 161. _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 plurals +other than after the English method, _i.e._, in _-s_: as _waltzes_, from +the German word _waltz_. + +s. 162. 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, {106} and has, moreover, a great power of +incorporating foreign elements, derives fresh words from varied sources, +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, from a paper of Mr. Crawford, read at the British +Association, 1849. + +_Persian._--Turban, caravan, dervise, &c.--_Ditto._ + +_Turkish._--Coffee, bashaw, divan, scimitar, janisary, &c.--_Ditto._ + +_Hindu languages._--Calico, chintz, cowrie, curry, lac, muslin, toddy, +&c.--_Ditto._ + +_Chinese._--Tea, bohea, congou, hyson, soy, nankin, &c.--_Ditto._ + +_Malay._--Bantam (fowl), gamboge, rattan, sago, shaddock, &c.--_Ditto._ + +_Polynesian._--Taboo, tattoo.--_Ditto._ + +_Tungusian_, or some similar Siberian language.--Mammoth, the bones of +which are chiefly from the banks of the Lena. + +_North American Indian._--Squaw, wigwam, pemmican. + +_Peruvian._--Charki=prepared meat; whence _jerked_ beef. + +_Caribbean._--Hammock. + +_Ancient Carian._--Mausoleum. + +s. 163. In s. 157 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 Syrian._--Pandar. + {107} + _Ancient Lydian._--Maeander. + _Ancient Persian._--Paradise. + +s. 164. 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 _di-morphism_, 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 in 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. 165. _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 languages of the United States is the history of the +Germanic language. + +s. 166. _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 one: lastly, let the meanings of the +two words be not absolutely incompatible. We may then have a word of +foreign origin taking the appearance of an English one. Such, amongst +others, are _beef-eater_, from _boeuffetier_; _sparrow-grass_, _asparagus_; +_Shotover_, _Chateau vert_;[24] _Jerusalem_, _Girasole_;[25] _Spanish {108} +beefeater_, _Spina befida_; _periwig_, _peruke_; _runagate_, _renegade_; +_lutestring_, _lustrino_;[26] _O yes_, _Oyez!_ _ancient_, _ensign_.[27] + +_Dog-cheap._--This has nothing to do with _dogs_. The first syllable is +_god_=_good_ transposed, and the second the _ch-p_ in _chapman_ +(=_merchant_) _cheap_, and _East-cheap_. In Sir J. Mandeville, we find +_god-kepe_=_good bargain_. + +_Sky-larking._--Nothing to do with _larks_ of any sort; still less the +particular species, _alauda arvensis_. The word improperly spelt _l-a-r-k_, +and banished to the slang regions of the English language, is the +Anglo-Saxon _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 Dowlass_=_Surajah Dowlah_, although so limited to the common +soldiers, and sailors who first used them, as to be exploded vulgarisms +rather than integral parts of the language, are examples of the same +tendency towards the irregular accommodation of misunderstood foreign +terms. + +_Birdbolt._--An incorrect name for the _gadus lota_, or _eel-pout_, and a +transformation of _barbote_. + +_Whistle-fish._--The same for _gadus mustela_, or _weazel-cod_. + +_Liquorice_=_glycyrrhiza_. + +_Wormwood_=_weremuth_, is an instance of a word from the same language, in +an antiquated shape, being equally transformed with a word of really +foreign origin. + +s. 167. 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 other people (or at +least had an allowance of that viand); 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 is sometimes a real {109} occurrence. To +account for the name _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. 168. 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_[28] from _frontispecium_, _sover_eig_n_, from +_sovrano_, _colle_a_gue_ from _collega_, _lant_h_orn_ (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. 169. 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_ is 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 observations respecting-- + +s. 170. _Introduction of new words_--_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 of other than of Greek origin is to be guilty of +hybridism. + +The terminations _-ble_ (as in _penetrable_), _-bility_ (as in +_penetrability_, _-al_ (as in _parental_)--these, amongst many others, are +Latin terminations. To add them to words of other than of Latin origin is +to be guilty of hybridism. + +{110} + +Hybridism is the commonest fault that accompanies the introduction of new +words. The hybrid additions to the English language are most numerous in +works on science. + +It must not, however, be concealed that several well established words are +hybrid; and that, even in the writings of the classical Roman authors, +there is hybridism between the Latin and the Greek. + +The etymological view of every word of foreign origin is, not that it is +put together in England, but that it is brought whole from the language to +which it is vernacular. Now no derived word can be brought whole from a +language unless, in that language, all its parts exist. The word +_penetrability_ is not derived from the English word _penetrable_, by the +addition of _-ty_. It is the Latin word _penetrabilitas_ imported. + +_In derived words all the parts must belong to one and the same language_, +or, changing the expression, _every derived word must have a possible form +in the language from which it is taken_. Such is the rule against +Hybridism. + +s. 171. 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. + +s. 172. _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-_. {111} + +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. 173. 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 (or, if the process be reversed, the +synthesis) is an historical analysis. + +But it is very evident that the English, or any other language, is capable +of being contemplated in another view, and that the same number of words +may be very differently classified. Instead of arranging them according to +the languages whence they are derived, let them be disposed according to +the meanings that they convey. Let it be said, for instance, that out of +40,000 words, 10,000 are the names of natural objects, that 1000 denote +abstract ideas, that 1000 relate to warfare, 1000 to church matters, 500 to +points of chivalry, 1000 to agriculture, and so on through the whole. In +this case the analysis (or, if the process be reversed, the synthesis) is +not historical but logical; the words being classed not according to their +origin, but according to their meaning. + +Now the logical and historical analysis of a language generally in some +degree coincides, as may be seen by noticing the kind of words introduced +from the Anglo-Norman, the Latin of the fourth period, and the Arabic. + + * * * * * + + +{112} + +CHAPTER II. + +THE RELATION OF THE ENGLISH TO THE ANGLO-SAXON, AND THE STAGES OF THE +ENGLISH LANGUAGE. + +s. 174. 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. _Smidhum_, the dative plural of +_smidh_, is equivalent in meaning to the English _to smiths_, or to the +Latin _fabris_. _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_, _plus_ the subordinate inflectional syllable _-um_, the sign of +the dative case. _To smiths_ is the substantive _smiths_, _plus_ the +preposition _to_, equivalent in power to the sign of a dative case, but +different from it in form. As far, then, as the word just quoted is +concerned, the Anglo-Saxon differs from the English thus. It expresses a +given idea by a modification of the form of the root, whereas the modern +English denotes the same idea by the addition of a preposition. The Saxon +inflection is superseded by a combination of words. + +The part that is played by the preposition with nouns, is played by the +auxiliaries (_have_, _be_, &c.) with verbs. + +The sentences in italics are mere variations of the same general statement. +(1.) _The earlier the stage of a given {113} 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 inflection 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 +_(to smiths)_, we can state that the first belongs to an early, the second +to a late, stage 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; so also the Modern +High German to the Moeso-Gothic; so the Modern Dutch of Holland to the Old +Frisian; so, moreover, amongst the languages of a different stock, are the +French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanese and Wallachian to the Latin, +and the Romaic to the Ancient Greek. + +s. 175. Contrasted with the English, but contrasted with it only in those +points where the ancient tongue is compared with the modern one, the +Anglo-Saxon has the following differences. + +NOUNS. + +_Of Gender._--In Anglo-Saxon there are three genders, the masculine, the +feminine, and the neuter. With _adjectives_ each gender has its peculiar +declension; with _substantives_ there are also appropriate terminations, +but only to a certain degree; _e.g._, of words ending in _-a_ (_nama_, a +name; _cuma_, a guest), it may be stated that they are always masculine; of +words in _-u_ (_sunu_, a son; _gifu_, a gift), that they are never neuter; +in other words, that they are either mas. or fem. + +The definite article varies with the gender of its substantive; _thaet +eage_, the eye; _se steorra_, the star; _seo tunge_, the tongue. {114} + +_Of Number._--The plural form in _-en_ (as in _oxen_), rare in English, was +common in Anglo-Saxon. It was the regular termination of a whole +declension; _e.g._, _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. + +_Of Case._--Of these the Saxons had, for their substantives, at least +three; viz. the nominative, dative, genitive. With the pronouns and +adjectives there was a true accusative form; and with a few especial words +an ablative or instrumental one. _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. + +Of the dative in _-um_, the word _whilom_ (_at times_, _at whiles_) is a +still extant and an almost isolated specimen. + +_Of Declension._--In _Anglo-Saxon_ it is necessary to determine the +termination of a substantive. There is the weak, or simple declension for +words ending in a vowel (as _eage_, _steorra_, _tunga_), and the strong, or +complex declension for words ending in a consonant (_smidh_, _spraec_, +_le['a]f_). The letters _i_ and _u_ are dealt with as semivowels, +semivowels being dealt with as consonants; so that words like _sunu_ and +_gifu_ belong to the same declension as _smidh_ and _spr['ae]c_. + +That the form of adjectives varies with their definitude or indefinitude, +has been seen from s. 93: definite adjectives following the inflection of +the simple; indefinite ones that of the complex declension. + +The detail of the Anglo-Saxon declension may be collected from ss. 83-89. + +The Anglo-Saxon inflection of the participles present is remarkable. With +the exception of the form for the genitive plural definite (which, instead +of _-ena_, is _-ra_,) they follow the declension of the adjectives. From +the masculine substantives formed from them, and denoting the agent, they +may be distinguished by a difference of inflection. {115} + + _Participle._ _Substantive._ + + Wegferende=_Wayfaring_. Wegferend=_Wayfarer_. + + _Sing. Nom._ Wegferende Wegferend. + _Acc._ Wegferendne Wegferend. + _Abl._ Wegferende Wegferende. + _Dat._ Wegferendum Wegferende. + _Gen._ Wegferendes Wegferendes. + _Plur. Nom._ Wegferende Wegferendas. + _Dat._ Wegferendum Wegferendum. + _Gen._ Wegferendra Wegferenda. + +_Pronouns Personal._--Of the pronominal inflection in Saxon, the character +may be gathered from the chapter upon pronouns. At present, it may be +stated that, like the Moeso-Gothic and the Icelandic, the Anglo-Saxon +language possessed for the first two persons a _dual_ number; inflected as +follows: + + _1st Person._ _2nd Person._ + + _Nom._ Wit _We two._ _Nom._ Git _Ye two._ + _Acc._ Unc _Us two._ _Acc._ Inc _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. + +_Mood._--The subjunctive mood that in the present English (with the +exception of the conjugation of the verb substantive) differs from the +indicative only in the third person singular, was in Anglo-Saxon inflected +as follows: + + _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_. {116} + +_Tense._--In regard to tense, the Anglo-Saxon coincided with the English. +The present language has two tenses, the present and the past; the Saxon +had no more. This past tense the modern English forms either by addition +(_love_, _loved_), or by change (_fall_, _fell_). So did the Anglo-Saxons. + +_Number and Person._--In the present English the termination -_eth_ +(_moveth_) is antiquated. In Anglo-Saxon it was the only form recognized. +In English the plural number (indicative as well as subjunctive) has no +distinguishing inflection. It was not so in Anglo-Saxon. There, although +the _persons_ were identical in form, the _numbers_ were distinguished by +the termination -_adh_ for the indicative, and -_n_ for the subjunctive. +(_See above._) For certain forms in the second conjugation, see the remarks +on the forms _drunk_ and _drank_, in Part IV. + +Such are the chief points in the declension of nouns and the conjugation of +verbs that give a difference of character between the ancient Anglo-Saxon +and the modern English: and it has already been stated that the difference +between the New and the Old German, the Dutch and the Frisian, the Italian, +&c., and the Latin, the Romaic and the Greek, &c., are precisely similar. + +How far two languages pass with equal rapidity from their ancient to their +modern, from their inflected to their uninflected state (in other words, +how far all languages alter at the same rate), is a question that will be +noticed elsewhere. At present, it is sufficient to say, that (just as we +should expect _[`a] priori_) languages do _not_ alter at the same rate. + +Akin to the last question is a second one: viz.: how far the rate of change +in a given language can be accelerated by external circumstances. This +second question bears immediately upon the history of the English language. +The grammar of the current idiom compared with the grammar of the +Anglo-Saxon is simplified. How far was this simplification of the grammar +promoted by the Norman Conquest. The current views exaggerate the influence +of the Norman Conquest and of French connexions. The remark of Mr. Price in +his Preface to Warton, acceded to by Mr. Hallam in his Introduction to the +Literature of Europe, is, that every one of the {117} other Low Germanic +languages (affected by nothing corresponding to the Norman Conquest) +displays the same simplification of grammar as the Anglo-Saxon (affected by +the Norman Conquest) displays. Confirmatory of this remark, it may be +added, that compared with the Icelandic, the Danish and Swedish do the +same. Derogatory to it is the comparatively complex grammar of the _new_ +German, compared, not only with the Old High German, but with the +Moeso-Gothic. An extract from Mr. Hallam shall close the present section +and introduce 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. 176. At a given period, then, the Anglo-Saxon of the standard, and (if +the expression may be used) classical authors, such as Caedmon, Alfred, +Aelfric, &c., had undergone such a change as to induce the scholars of the +present age to denominate it, not Saxon, but _Semi_-Saxon. It had ceased to +be genuine Saxon, but had not yet become English. In certain parts of the +kingdom, where the mode of speech {118} changed more rapidly than +elsewhere, the Semi-Saxon stage of our language came earlier. It was, as it +were, precipitated. + +The History of King Leir and his Daughters is found in two forms. Between +these there is a difference either of dialect or of date, and possibly of +both. Each, however, is Semi-Saxon. The extracts are made from Thorpe's +Analecta Anglo-Saxonica, p. 143. + + Bladud hafde ene sune, Bladud hadde one sone, + Leir was ihaten; Leir was ihote, + Efter his fader daie, After his fader he held this lond, + He heold this drihlice lond, In his owene hond, + Somed an his live, Ilaste his lif-dages, + Sixti winter. Sixti winter. + He makade ane riche burh, He makede on riche borh, + Thurh radfulle his crafte, Thorh wisemenne reade, + And he heo lette nemnen, And hine lette nemni, + Efter him seolvan; After him seolve; + Kaer-Leir hehte the burh. Kair-Leir hehte the borh. + Leof heo wes than kinge, Leof he was than kinge; + Tha we, an ure leod-quide, The we, on ure speche, + Leir-chestre clepiad, Leth-chestre cleopieth, + Geare a than holde dawon. In than eolde daiye. + +The Grave, a poetical fragment, the latter part of the Saxon Chronicle, a +Homily for St. Edmund's Day (given in the Analecta), and above all the +printed extracts of the poem of Layamon, are the more accessible specimens +of the Semi-Saxon. The Ormulum, although in many points English rather than +Saxon, retains the dual number of the Anglo-Saxon pronouns. However, lest +too much stress be laid upon this circumstance, the epistolary character of +the Ormulum must be borne in mind. + +It is very evident that if, even in the present day, there were spoken in +some remote district the language of Alfred and Aelfric, such a mode of +speech would be called, not Modern English, but Anglo-Saxon. This teaches +us that the stage of language is to be measured, not by its date, but by +its structure. Hence, Saxon ends and Semi-Saxon begins, not at a given +year, A.D., but at that time {119} (whenever it be) when certain +grammatical inflections disappear, and certain characters of a more +advanced stage are introduced. + +Some amongst others, of the earlier changes of the standard Anglo-Saxon +are, + +1. The substitution of -_an_ for -_as_, in the plural of substantives, +_munucan_ for _munucas_ (monks); and, conversely, the substitution of -_s_ +for -_n_, as _steorres_ for _steorran_ (stars). The use of -_s_, as the +sign of the plural, without respect to gender, or declension, may be one of +those changes that the Norman Conquest forwarded; -_s_ being the sign of +the plural in Anglo-Norman. + +2. The ejection or shortening of final vowels, _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. 177. _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 recognized in pronunciation also. + +2. The ejection of -_es_ in the genitive singular whenever the {120} +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 occasional occurrence) +constitutes old English in contradistinction to Semi-Saxon. + +The following extract from Henry's history (vol. viii. append. iv.) is the +proclamation of Henry III. to the people of Huntingdonshire, A.D. 1258. It +currently passes for the earliest specimen of English. + + "Henry, thurg Godes fultome, King on Engleneloande, lhoaurd on Yrloand, + Duke on Normand, on Acquitain, Eorl on Anjou, send I greting, to alle + hise holde, ilaerde & ilewerde on Huntingdonschiere. + + "That witen ge well alle, thaet we willen & unnen (grant) thaet ure + raedesmen alle other, the moare del of heom, thaet beoth ichosen thurg + us and thurg thaet loandes-folk on ure Kuneriche, habbith idon, and + schullen don, in the worthnes of God, and ure threowthe, for the freme + of the loande, thurg the besigte of than toforen iseide raedesmen, beo + stedfaest and ilestinde in alle thinge abutan aende, and we heaten alle + ure treowe, in the treowthe thaet heo us ogen, thet heo stede-feslliche + healden & weren to healden & to swerien the isetnesses thet beon makede + and beo to makien, thurg than toforen iseide raedesmen, other thurg the + moare del of heom alswo, also hit is before iseide. And thet aeheother + helpe thet for to done bitham ilche other, aganes alle men in alle thet + heo ogt for to done, and to foangen. And noan ne of mine loande, ne of + egetewhere, thurg this besigte, muge beon ilet other iwersed on + oniewise. And gif oni ether onie cumen her ongenes, we willen & heaten, + thaet alle ure treowe heom healden deadlichistan. And for thaet we + willen thaet this beo staedfast and lestinde, we senden gew this writ + open, iseined with ure seel, to halden amanges gew ine hord. Witnes + us-selven aet Lundaen, thaene egetetenthe day on the monthe of Octobr, + in the two and fowertigthe geare of ure crunning." + +s. 178. The songs amongst the political verses printed by the Camden +Society, the romance of Havelok the Dane, {121} William and the Werwolf, +the Gestes of Alisaundre, King Horn, Ipomedon, and the King of Tars; and, +amongst the longer works, Robert of Gloucester's Chronicle, and the poems +of Robert of Bourn (Brunn), are (amongst others) Old English. Broadly +speaking, the _Old_ English may be said to begin with the reign of Henry +III., and to end with that of Edward III. + +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_;--_ditto_. + +3. The existence of a genitive plural in _-r_ or _-ra_; _heora_, theirs; +_aller_, of all;--_ditto_. This with substantives and adjectives is less +common. + +4. The substitution of _heo_ for _they_, of _heora_ for _their_, of _hem_ +for _them_;--in contradistinction to the later stages of English, and in +contradistinction to old Lowland _Scotch_. (See Chapter III.) + +5. A more frequent use of _min_ and _thin_, for _my_ and _thy_;--in +contradistinction to middle and modern English. + +6. The use of _heo_ for _she_;--in contradistinction to middle and modern +English and old Lowland _Scotch_. + +7. The use of broader vowels; as in _iclep_u_d_ or _iclep_o_d_ (for +_iclep_e_d_ or _ycl_e_pt_); _geong_o_st_, 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;--_ditto_. + +11. The comparative absence of the articles _se_ and _seo_;--_ditto_. {122} + +12. The substitution of _ben_ and _beeth_, for _synd_ and _syndon_=_we_, +_ye_, _they are_;--in contradistinction to Semi-Saxon. + +s. 179. The degree to which the Anglo-Saxon was actually influenced by the +Anglo-Norman has been noticed. The degree wherein the two languages came in +contact is, plainly, another consideration. The first is the question, How +far one of two languages influenced the other? The second asks, How far one +of two languages had the opportunity of influencing the other? 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). + +That there was French in England before the battle of Hastings appears on +the authority of Camden:-- + + "Herein is a notable argument of our ancestors' steadfastness in + esteeming and retaining their own tongue. For, as _before the + Conquest_, they misliked nothing more in King Edward the Confessor, + than that he was Frenchified, and accounted the desire of a foreign + language then to be a foretoken of the bringing in of foreign powers, + which indeed happened."--_Remains_, p. 30. + +s. 180. In Chaucer and Mandeville, and perhaps in all the writers of the +reign of Edward III., we have a transition {123} from the Old to the Middle +English. The last characteristic of a grammar different from that of the +present English, is the plural form in _-en_; _we tellen_, _ye tellen_, +_they tellen_. As this disappears, which it does in the reign of Queen +Elizabeth (Spenser has it continually), the Middle English may be said to +pass into the New or Modern English. + +s. 181. 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_, for _if it be_, and _if he speak_. + +2. The distinction (as far as it goes) between the participle passive and +the past tense is likely to pass away. We verify this by the tendency to +say _it is broke_, and _he is smote_, for _it is broken_, and _he is +smitten_. + +3. Of the double forms, _sung_ and _sang_, _drank_ and _drunk_, &c. one +only will be the permanent. + +As stated above, these tendencies are a few out of a number, and have been +adduced in order to indicate the subject rather than to exhaust it. + +s. 182. What the present language of England would have been had the Norman +Conquest never taken place, the analogy of Holland, Denmark, and of many +other countries enables us to determine. It would have been much as it is +at present. What it would have been had the _Saxon_ conquest never taken +place, is a question wherein there is far more speculation. Of France, of +Italy, of Wallachia, and of the Spanish Peninsula, the analogies all point +the same way. They indicate that the original Celtic would have been +superseded by the Latin of the conquerors, and consequently that our +language in its later stages would have been neither British nor Gaelic, +but Roman. Upon these analogies, however, we may refine. Italy, was from +the beginning, Roman; the Spanish Peninsula was invaded full early; no +ocean divided Gaul from Rome; and the war against the ancestors of the +Wallachians was a war of extermination. + + * * * * * + + +{124} + +CHAPTER III. + +ON THE LOWLAND SCOTCH. + +s. 183. The term _Lowland_ is used to distinguish the Scotch of the +South-east from the Scotch of the Highlands. The former is English in its +immediate affinities, and Germanic in origin; the latter is nearly the same +language with the Gaelic of Ireland, and is, consequently, Celtic. + +The question as to whether the Lowland Scotch is a dialect of the English, +or a separate and independent language, is a verbal rather than a real one. + +Reasons for considering the Scotch and English as _dialects_ of one and the +same language lie in the fact of their being (except in the case of the +more extreme forms of each) mutually intelligible. + +Reasons for calling one a dialect of the other depend upon causes other +than philological, _e.g._, political preponderance, literary development, +and the like. + +Reasons for treating the Scotch as a separate substantive language lie in +the extent to which it has the qualities of a regular cultivated tongue, +and a separate substantive literature--partially separate and substantive +at the present time, wholly separate and substantive in the times anterior +to the union of the crowns, and in the hands of Wyntoun, Blind Harry, +Dunbar, and Lindsay. + +s. 184. Reasons for making the _philological_ distinction between the +English and Scotch dialects exactly coincide with the geographical and +political boundaries between the two kingdoms are not so easily given. It +is not likely that the Tweed and Solway should divide modes of speech so +accurately as they divide laws and customs; that broad and trenchant lines +of demarcation should separate the Scotch {125} from the English exactly +along the line of the Border; and that there should be no Scotch elements +in Northumberland, and no Northumbrian ones in Scotland. Neither is such +the case. Hence, in speaking of the Lowland Scotch, it means the language +in its typical rather than in its transitional forms; indeed, it means the +_literary_ Lowland Scotch which, under the first five Stuarts, was as truly +an independent language as compared with the English, as Swedish is to +Danish, Portuguese to Spanish, or _vice vers[^a]_. + +s. 185. This limitation leaves us fully sufficient room for the notice of +the question as to its _origin_; a notice all the more necessary from the +fact of its having created controversy. + +What is the _prim[^a] facie_ view of the relations between the English of +England, and the mutually intelligible language (Scotch or English, as we +choose to call it) of Scotland? One of three:-- + +1. That it originated in England, and spread in the way of extension and +diffusion northwards, and so reached Scotland. + +2. That it originated in Scotland, and spread in the way of extension and +diffusion southwards, and so reached England. + +3. That it was introduced in each country from a common source. + +In any of these cases it is Angle, or Saxon, or Anglo-Saxon, even as +English is Angle, or Saxon, or Anglo-Saxon. + +s. 186. A view, however, different from these, and one disconnecting the +Lowland Scotch from the English and Anglo-Saxon equally, is what may be +called the _Pict_ doctrine. Herein it is maintained that the Lowland +_Scotch is derived from the Pict, and that the Picts were of Gothic_ +origin. The reasoning upon these matters is to be found in the Dissertation +upon the Origin of the Scottish Language prefixed to Jamieson's +Etymological Dictionary: two extracts from which explain the view which the +author undertakes to combat:-- + +_a._ "It is an opinion which, after many others, has been pretty generally +received, and, perhaps, almost taken for granted, that the language spoken +in the Lowlands of {126} Scotland is merely a corrupt dialect of the +English, or at least of the Anglo-Saxon." + +_b._ "It has generally been supposed that the Saxon language was introduced +into Scotland in the reign of Malcolm Canmore by his good queen and her +retinue; or partly by means of the intercourse which prevailed between the +inhabitants of Scotland and those of Cumberland, Northumberland, +Westmoreland, and Durham, which were held by the Kings of Scotland as fiefs +of the crown of England. An English writer, not less distinguished for his +amiable disposition and candour than for the cultivation of his mind, has +objected to this hypothesis with great force of argument." + +s. 187. Now, as against any such notion as that involved in the preceding +extracts, the reasoning of the learned author of the Scottish Dictionary +may, perhaps, be valid. No such view, however, is held, at the present +moment, by any competent judge; and it is doubtful whether, in the extreme +way in which it is put forward by the opponent of it, it was ever +maintained at all. + +Be this, however, as it may, the theory which is opposed to it rests upon +the following positions-- + +1. That the Lowland Scotch were Picts. + +2. That the Picts were Goths. + +In favour of this latter view the chief reasons are-- + +1. That what the Belgae were the Picts were also. + +2. That the Belgae were Germanic. + +Again-- + +1. That the natives of the Orkneys were Picts. + +2. That they were also Scandinavian. + +So that the Picts were Scandinavian Goths. + +From whence it follows that--assuming what is true concerning the Orkneys +is true concerning the Lowland Scotch--the Lowland Scotch was Pict, +Scandinavian, Gothic, and (as such) more or less Belgic. + +For the non-Gothic character of the Picts see the researches of Mr. +Garnett, as given in s. 139, as well as a paper--believed to be from the +same author--in the Quarterly Review for 1834. {127} + +For the position of the Belgae, see Chapter IV. + +s. 188. That what is true concerning the Orkneys (viz. that they were +Scandinavian) is _not_ true for the south and eastern parts of Scotland, is +to be collected from the peculiar distribution of the Scottish Gaelic; +which indicates a distinction between the Scandinavian of the north of +Scotland and the Scandinavian of the east of England. The Lowland Scotch +recedes as we go northward. Notwithstanding this, it is _not_ the extreme +north that is most Gaelic. In Caithness the geographical names are Norse. +_Sutherland_, the most northern county of Scotland, takes its name from +being _south_; that is, of Norway. The Orkneys and Shetland are in name, +manners, and language, Norse or Scandinavian. The Hebrides are Gaelic mixed +with Scandinavian. The Isle of Man is the same. The word _Sodor_ (in Sodor +and Man) is Norse, with the same meaning as it has in _Sutherland_. All +this indicates a more preponderating, and an earlier infusion of Norse +along the coast of Scotland, than that which took place under the Danes +upon the coasts of England, in the days of Alfred and under the reign of +Canute. The first may, moreover, have this additional peculiarity, _viz._ +of being Norwegian rather than Danish. Hence I infer that the Scandinavians +settled in the northern parts of Scotland at an early period, but that it +was a late period when they ravaged the southern ones; so that, though the +language of Orkney may be Norse, that of the Lothians may be Saxon. + +To verify these views we want not a general dictionary of the Scottish +language taken altogether, but a series of local glossaries, or at any rate +a vocabulary, 1st, of the northern; 2ndly, of the southern Scottish. + +Between the English and Lowland Scotch we must account for the likeness as +well as the difference. The Scandinavian theory accounts for the difference +only. + +s. 189. Of the following specimens of the Lowland Scotch, the first is from +The Bruce, a poem written by Barbour, Archdeacon of Aberdeen, between the +years 1360 and 1375; the second from Wyntoun; the third from Blind Harry's +poem, Wallace, 1460; and the fourth from Gawin Douglas's translation of the +Aeneid, A.D. 1513. {128} + + _The Bruce_, iv. 871--892. + + And as he raid in to the nycht, + So saw he, with the monys lycht, + Schynnyng off scheldys gret plent['e]; + And had wondre quhat it mycht be. + With that all hale thai gaiff a cry, + And he, that hard sa suddainly + Sic noyis, sumdele affrayit was. + Bot in schort time he till him tais + His spyrites full hardely; + For his gentill hart, and worthy, + Assurit hym in to that nede. + Then with the spuris he strak the sted, + And ruschyt in amaing them all. + The feyrst he met he gert him fall; + And syne his suord he swapyt out, + And roucht about him mony rout, + And slew sexsum weill sone and ma: + Then wndre him his horss thai sla: + And he fell; but he smertty rass, + And strykand rowm about him mass: + And slew off thaim a quantit['e]. + But woundyt wondre sar was he. + + _Wyntoun's Chronicle_, I. xiii. 1--22. + + Blessyde Bretayn Beelde sulde be + Of all the Ilys in the Se, + Quhare Flowrys are fele on Feldys fayre + Hale of hewe, haylsum of ayre. + Of all corne thare is copy gret, + Pese and A'tys, Bere and Qwhet: + B['a]th froyt on Tre, and fysche in flwde; + And tyl all Catale pasture gwde. + Solynus Sayis, in Brettany + Sum steddys growys s['a] habowndanly + Of Gyrs, that sum tym (but) thair Fe + Fr['a] fwlth of Mete refrenyht be, + Dhair fwde sall turne tham to peryle, + To rot, or bryst, or dey sum quhyle. + Dhare wylde in Wode has welth at wille; + Dhare hyrdys hydys Holme and Hille: + Dhare Bwyis bowys all for Byrtht, + {129} + B['a]the Merle and Ma[:w]esys mellys for myrtht: + Dhare huntyng is at all kyne Dere, + And rycht gud hawlkyn on Bywer; + Of Fysche thaire is habowndance; + And nedfulle thyng to Mannys substance. + + _Wallace_, xi. 230-262. + + A lord off court, quhen he approchyt thar, + Wnwisytly sperd, withoutyn prouision; + "Wallace, dar ye go fecht on our lioun?" + And he said; "Ya, so the Kyng suffyr me; + Or on your selff, gyff ye ocht bettyr be." + Quhat will ye mar? this thing amittyt was, + That Wallace suld on to the lioun pas. + The King thaim chargyt to bring him gud harnas: + Then he said; "Nay, God scheild me fra sic cass. + I wald tak weid, suld I fecht with a man; + But (for) a dog, that nocht off armes can, + I will haiff nayn, bot synglar as I ga." + A gret manteill about his hand can ta, + And his gud suerd; with him he tuk na mar; + Abandounly in barrace entryt thar. + Gret chenys was wrocht in the yet with a gyn, + And pulld it to quhen Wallace was tharin. + The wod lyoun, on Wallace quhar he stud, + Rampand he braid, for he desyryt blud; + With his rude pollis in the mantill rocht sa. + Aukwart the bak than Wallace can him ta, + With his gud suerd, that was off burnest steill, + His body in twa it thruschyt euirilkdeill. + Syn to the King he raykyt in gret ire, + And said on lowd; "Was this all your desyr, + To wayr a Scot thus lychtly in to wayn? + Is thar mar doggis at ye wald yeit haiff slayne? + Go, bryng thaim furth, sen I mon doggis qwell, + To do byddyng, quhill that with thee duell. + It gaynd full weill I graithit me to Scotland; + For grettar deidis thair men has apon hand, + Than with a dog in battaill to escheiff-- + At you in France for euir I tak my leiff." + +{130} + + _Gawin Douglas_, Aen. ii. + + As Laocon that was Neptunus priest, + And chosin by cavil vnto that ilk office, + Ane fare grete bull offerit in sacrifice, + Solempnithe before the haly altere, + Throw the still sey from Tenedos in fere, + Lo twa gret lowpit edderis with mony thraw + First throw the flude towart the land can draw. + (My sprete abhorris this matter to declare) + Aboue the wattir thare hals stude euirmare, + With bludy creistis outwith the wallis hie, + The remanent swam always vnder the se, + With grisly bodyis lynkit mony fald, + The salt fame stouris from the fard they hald, + Unto the ground thay glade with glowand ene, + Stuffit full of venom, fire and felloun tene, + With tounges quhissling in thar mouthis red, + Thay lik the twynkilland stangis in thar hed. + We fled away al bludles for effere. + Bot with ane braide to Laocon in fere + Thay stert attanis, and his twa sonnys zyng + First athir serpent lappit like ane ring, + And with thare cruel bit, and stangis fell, + Of tender membris tuke mony sory morsel; + Syne thay the preist invadit baith twane, + Quhilk wyth his wappins did his besy pane + His childer for to helpen and reskew. + Bot thay about him lowpit in wympillis threw, + And twis circulit his myddel round about, + And twys faldit thare sprutillit skynnis but dout, + About his hals, baith neck and hed they schent. + As he ettis thare hankis to haue rent, + And with his handis thaym away haue draw, + His hede bendis and garlandis all war blaw + Full of vennum and rank poysoun attanis, + Quhilk infekkis the flesche, blude, and banys. + +s. 190. In the way of orthography, the most characteristic difference +between the English and Scotch is the use, on the part of the latter, of +_qu_ for _wh_; as _quhen_, _quhare_, _quhat_, for _when_, _where_, _what_. +The substitution of _sch_ for _sh_ (as _scho_ for _she_), and of _z_ for +the Old English _[gh]_ (as _zour_ for _[gh]eowr_, _your_), is as much +northern English as Scotch. {131} + +In pronunciation, the substitution of _d_ for _dh_ (if not a point of +spelling), as in _fader_ for _father_; of _a_ for _o_, as _b['a]ith_ for +_both_; of _s_ for _sh_, as _sall_ for _shall_; and the use of the guttural +sound of _ch_, as in _loch_, _nocht_, are the same. + +The ejection of the _n_ before _t_, or an allied sound, and the lengthening +of the preceding vowel, by way of compensation, as in _begouth_ for +_beginneth_, seems truly Scotch. It is the same change that in Greek turns +the radical syllable [Greek: odont] into [Greek: odous]. + +The formation of the plural of verbs in _-s_, rather than in _-th_ (the +Anglo-Saxon form), is Northern English as well as Scotch:--Scotch, +_slepys_, _lovys_; Northern English, _slepis_, _lovis_; Old English, +_slepen_, _loven_; Anglo-Saxon _slepiadh_, _lufiadh_. + +The formation of the plural number of the genitive case by the addition of +the syllable _-is_ (_blastis_, _birdis_, _bloomis_), instead of the letter +_-s_ (_blasts_, _birds_, _blooms_), carries with it a metrical advantage, +inasmuch as it gives a greater number of double rhymes. + +The same may be said of the participial forms, _affrayit_, _assurit_, for +_affrayd_, _assured_. + +Concerning the comparative rate of change in the two languages no general +assertion can be made. In the Scotch words _sterand_, _slepand_, &c., for +_steering_, _sleeping_, the form is antiquated, and Anglo-Saxon rather than +English. It is not so, however, with the words _thai_ (_they_), _thaim_ +(_them_), _thair_ (_their_), compared with the contemporary words in +English, _heo_, _hem_, _heora_. In these it is the Scottish that is least, +and the English that is most Anglo-Saxon. + + * * * * * + + +{132} + +CHAPTER IV. + +OF CERTAIN UNDETERMINED AND FICTITIOUS LANGUAGES OF GREAT BRITAIN. + +s. 191. The languages mentioned in the present chapter claim their place on +one ground only,--_they have been the subject of controversy_. The notice +of them will be brief. The current texts upon which the controversies have +turned will be quoted; whilst the opinion of the present writer is left to +be collected from the title of the chapter. + +_The Belgae._--By some these are considered a Germanic rather than a Celtic +tribe; the view being supported by the following extracts from +Caesar:--"_Gallia est omnis divisa in tres partes; quarum unam incolunt +Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam, qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli, +appellantur. Hi omnes lingua, institutis, legibus inter se differunt. +Gallos--a Belgis Matrona et Sequana dividit._"--B. G. i. "_Belgae ab +extremis Galliae finibus oriuntur._"--B. G. ii. "_Quum ab his quaereret, +quae civitates, quantaeque in armis essent, et quid in bello possent, sic +reperiebat: plerosque Belgas esse ortos a Germanis, Rhenumque antiquit[`u]s +transductos, propter loci fertilitatem ibi consedisse; Gallosque, qui ea +loca incolerent, expulisse; solosque esse qui patrum nostrorum memoria, +omni Gallia vexata Teutones Cimbrosque intra fines suos ingredi +prohibuerunt._"--B. G. ii. 4. "_Britanniae pars interior ab iis incolitur +quos natos in insul[^a] ips[^a] memori[^a] proditum dicunt: maritima pars +ab iis, qui praedae ac belli inferendi causa ex Belgio transierant._"--B. +G. v. 12. + +s. 192. The possibly Germanic origin of the Belgae, and the Belgic element +of the British population, are matters which bear upon the question +indicated in s. 10, or that of the Germanic influences anterior to A.D. +449. {133} + +They have a still more important bearing, the historian over and above +identifying the Belgae with the Germans, affirms _that what applies to the +Belgae applies to the Picts_ also. + +Now this is one of the arguments in favour of the doctrine exhibited (and +objected to) in pp. 124-127, and the extent of questions upon which it +bears, may be collected from the following quotation:--"A variety of other +considerations might be mentioned, which, although they do not singly +amount to proof, yet merit attention, as viewed in connexion with what has +been already stated. + +"As so great a part of the eastern coast of what is now called England was +so early peopled by the Belgae, it is hardly conceivable that neither so +enterprising a people, nor any of their kindred tribes, should ever think +of extending their descents a little farther eastward. For that the Belgae +and the inhabitants of the countries bordering on the Baltic, had a common +origin, there seems to be little reason to doubt. The Dutch assert that +their progenitors were Scandinavians, who, about a century before the +common era, left Jutland and the neighbouring territories, in quest of new +habitations.[29] The Saxons must be viewed as a branch from the same stock; +for they also proceeded from modern Jutland and its vicinity. Now, there is +nothing repugnant to reason in supposing that some of these tribes should +pass over directly to the coast of Scotland opposite to them, even before +the Christian era. For Mr. Whitaker admits that the Saxons, whom he +strangely makes a Gaulic people, in the second century applied themselves +to navigation, and soon became formidable to the Romans.[30] Before they +could become formidable to so powerful a people, they must have been at +least so well acquainted with navigation as to account it no great +enterprise to cross from the shores of the Baltic over to Scotland, +especially if they took the islands of Shetland and Orkney in their way. + +"As we have seen that, according to Ptolemy, there were, in his time, +different tribes of Belgae, settled on the northern {134} extremity of our +country: the most natural idea undoubtedly is, that they came directly from +the Continent. For had these Belgae crossed the English Channel, according +to the common progress of barbarous nations, it is scarcely supposable that +this island would have been settled to its utmost extremity so early as the +age of Agricola. + +"There is every reason to believe, that the Belgic tribes in Caledonia, +described by Ptolemy, were Picts. For as the Belgae, Picts, and Saxons seem +to have had a common origin, it is not worth while to differ about names. +These frequently arise from causes so trivial, that their origin becomes +totally inscrutable to succeeding ages. The Angles, although only one +tribe, have accidentally given their name to the country which they +invaded, and to all the descendants of the Saxons and Belgae, who were by +far more numerous. + +"It is universally admitted, that there is a certain national character, of +an external kind, which distinguishes one people from another. This is +often so strong that those who have travelled through various countries, or +have accurately marked the diversities of this character, will scarcely be +deceived even as to a straggling individual. Tacitus long ago remarked the +striking resemblance between the Germans and Caledonians. Every stranger, +at this day, observes the great difference and complexion between the +Highlanders and Lowlanders. No intelligent person in England is in danger +of confounding the Welsh with the posterity of the Saxons. Now, if the +Lowland Scots be not a Gothic race, but in fact the descendants of the +ancient British, they must be supposed to retain some national resemblance +of the Welsh. But will any impartial observer venture to assert, that in +feature, complexion, or form, there is any such similarity as to induce the +slightest apprehension that they have been originally the same people?"[31] + +It is doubtful, however, whether Caesar meant to say more than that over +above certain differences which distinguished the Belgae from the other +inhabitants of the common country _Gallia_, there was an intermixture of +Germans. + +{135} + +The import of a possibly Germanic origin for the Belgae gives us the import +of a possibly Germanic origin for-- + +s. 193. _The Caledonians._--A speculative sentence of Tacitus indicates the +chance of the Caledonians being Germanic:--"_Britanniam qui mortales initio +coluerint, indigenae an advecti, ut inter barbaros, parum compertum. +Habitus corporum varii: atque ex eo argumenta: namque rutilae Caledoniam +habitantium comae, magni artus, Germanicam originem +adseverant._"--Agricola, xi. + +The continuation of the passage quoted in s. 193 has induced the notion +that there have been in Britain Spanish, Iberic, or Basque +tribes:--"_Silurum colorati vultus, et torti plerumque crines, et posita +contra Hispania, Iberos veteres trajecisse, easque sedes occup[^a]sse fidem +faciunt._"--Agricola, xi. + +As this, although an opinion connected with the history of the languages of +Great Britain, is not an opinion connected with the history of the English +language, it is a question for the Celtic, rather than the Gothic, +philologist. The same applies to the points noticed in ss. 136-138. +Nevertheless they are necessary for the purposes of minute philological +analysis. + +s. 194. As early as the year A.D. 1676, an opinion was advanced by[32] +Aylett Sammes, in a work entitled Britannia Antiqua Illustrata, that the +first colonisers of Ireland were the merchants of Tyre and Sidon. In +confirmation of this opinion the existence of several Eastern customs in +Ireland was adduced by subsequent antiquarians. Further marks of an Eastern +origin of the Irish were soon found in the Gaelic dialect of that country. +Finally, the matter (in the eyes at least of the national writers) was +satisfactorily settled by the famous discovery, attributed to General +Vallancey, of the true meaning of the Carthaginian lines in Plautus. + +In the Little Carthaginian (Poenulus) of the Latin comic writer Plautus, a +portion of the dialogue is carried on in the language of Carthage. + +That the Punic language of Carthage should closely {136} resemble that of +the mother-city Tyre, which was Phoenician; and that the Phoenician of Tyre +should be allied to the language of Palestine and Syria, was soon remarked +by the classical commentators of the time. Joseph Scaliger asserted that +the Punic of the Poenulus _differed but little from pure Hebrew_--"_Ab +Hebraismi puritate parum abesse._" + +Emendated and interpreted by Bochart, the first ten lines of a speech in +Act v. s. 1. stand thus:-- + + 1. N' yth alionim valionuth sicorath jismacon sith + 2. Chy-mlachai jythmu mitslia mittebariim ischi + 3. Liphorcaneth yth beni ith jad adi ubinuthai + 4. Birua rob syllohom alonim ubymisyrtohom + 5. Bythrym moth ymoth othi helech Antidamarchon + 6. Ys sideli: brim tyfel yth chili schontem liphul + 7. Uth bin imys dibur thim nocuth nu' Agorastocles + 8. Ythem aneti hy chyr saely choc, sith naso. + 9. Binni id chi lu hilli gubylim lasibil thym + 10. Body aly thera ynn' yss' immoncon lu sim-- + + _The Same, in Hebrew Characters._ + + [Hebrew: N' 'T `LYWNYM W`LYWNWT SHKWRT YSMKWN Z'T:] .1 + [Hebrew: KY MLKY NTMW: MTSLYCH MDBRYHM `SQY:] .2 + [Hebrew: LPWRQNT 'T BNY 'T YD `DY WBNWTY:] .3 + [Hebrew: BRWCH RB SHLHM `LYWNYM WBMSHWRTHM:] .4 + [Hebrew: BT`RM MWT CHNWT 'WTY HLK 'NTYDMRKWN:] .5 + [Hebrew: 'YSH SHYD`LY: BRM T`PL 'T CHYLY SHKYNTM L'PL:] .6 + [Hebrew: 'T BN 'MYTS DBWR TM NQWT` NWH 'GWRST`WQLYS:] .7 + [Hebrew: CHWTM CHNWTY HW' KYWR SH'LY CHWQ Z'T NWSH':] .8 + [Hebrew: BYNY `D KY LW H'LH GBWLYM LSHBT TM:] .9 + [Hebrew: BW' DY `LY TR` 'N': HNW 'SH'L 'M MNKR LW 'M] .01 + + +Six lines following these were determined to be _Liby_-Phoenician, or the +language of the native Africans in the neighbourhood of Carthage, mixed +with Punic. These, it was stated, had the same meaning with the ten lines +in Carthaginian. + +The following lines of Plautus have, by all commentators, {137} been viewed +in the same light, _viz._ as the Latin version of the speech of the +Carthaginian. + + 1. Deos deasque veneror, qui hanc urbem colunt, + 2. Ut, quod de mea re huc veni, rite venerim. + 3. Measque hic ut gnatas, et mei fratris filium + 4. Reperire me siritis: Di, vostram fidem! + 5. Quae mihi surruptae sunt, et fratris filium: + 6. Sed hic mihi antehac hospes Antidamas fuit. + 7. Eum fecisse aiunt, sibi quod faciendum fuit. + 8. Ejus filium hic esse praedicant Agorastoclem: + 9. Deum hospitalem et tesseram mecum fero: + 10. In hisce habitare monstratum est regionibus. + 11. Hos percunctabor, qui huc egrediuntur foras. + +Guided by the metrical _paraphrase_ of the original author, Bochart laid +before the scholars of his time a Latin version, of which the following is +an English translation:-- + +_Close Translation of Bochart's Latin Version._ + + 1. I ask the gods and goddesses that preside over this city, + 2. That my plans may be fulfilled.--May my business prosper under their + guidance! + 3. The release of my son and my daughters from the hands of a robber. + 4. May the gods grant this, through the mighty spirit that is in them and + by their providence! + 5. Before his death, Antidamarchus used to sojourn with me. + 6. A man intimate with me: but he has joined the ranks of those whose + dwelling is in darkness (the dead). + 7. There is a general report that his son has here taken his abode; + _viz._ Agorastocles. + 8. The token (tally) of my claim to hospitality is a carven tablet, the + sculpture whereof is my god. This I carry. + 9. A witness has informed me that he lives in this neighbourhood. + 10. Somebody comes this way through the gate: behold him: I'll ask him + whether he knows the name. + +To professed classics and to professed orientalists, the version of Bochart +has, _on the whole_, appeared satisfactory. Divisions of opinion there have +been, it is true, even amongst those who received it; but merely upon +matters of detail. Some have held that the Punic is Syriac rather than +Hebraic, whilst others have called in to its interpretation the Arabic, +{138} the Maltese, or the Chaldee; all (be it observed) languages akin to +the Hebrew. Those who look further than this for their affinities, +Gesenius[33] dismisses in the following cavalier and cursory manner:--"_Ne +eorum somnia memorem, qui e Vasconum et Hiberniae linguis huic causae +succurri posse opinati sunt; de quibus copiosius referre piget._" + +The remark of Gesenius concerning the pretended affinities between the +Punic and Hibernian arose from the discovery attributed to General +Vallancey; _viz._ that the speech in Plautus was Irish Gaelic, and +consequently that the Irish was Carthaginian, and _vice vers[^a]_. The word +_attributed_ is used because the true originator of the hypothesis was not +Vallancey, but O'Neachtan. + +_The Gaelic Version._ + + 1. N 'iath all o nimh uath lonnaithe socruidshe me comsith + 2. Chimi lach chuinigh! muini is toil, miocht beiridh iar mo scith + 3. Liomhtha can ati bi mitche ad ['e]adan beannaithe + 4. Bior nar ob siladh umhal: o nimh! ibhim a frotha! + 5. Beith liom! mo thime noctaithe; neil ach tan ti daisic mac coinme + 6. Is i de leabhraim tafach leith, chi lis con teampluibh ulla + 7. Uch bin nim i is de beart inn a ccomhnuithe Agorastocles! + 8. Itche mana ith a chithirsi; leicceath sith nosa! + 9. Buaine na iad cheile ile: gabh liom an la so bithim'! + 10. Bo dileachtach nionath n' isle, mon cothoil us im. + +_In English._ + + 1. Omnipotent much-dreaded Deity of this country! assuage my troubled + mind! + 2. Thou! the support of feeble captives! being now exhausted with + fatigue, of thy free will guide to my children! + 3. O let my prayers be perfectly acceptable in thy sight! + 4. An inexhaustible fountain to the humble: O Deity! let me drink of its + streams! + 5. Forsake me not! my earnest desire is now disclosed, which is only that + of recovering my daughters. + 6. This was my fervent prayer, lamenting their misfortunes in thy sacred + temples. + 7. O bounteous Deity! it is reported here dwelleth Agorastocles. + {139} + 8. Should my request appear just, let here my disquietudes cease. + 9. Let them be no longer concealed; O that I may this day find my + daughters! + 10. They will be fatherless, and preys to the worst of men, unless it be + thy pleasure that I should find them. + +From the quotations already given, the general reader may see that both the +text and the translation of Plautus are least violated in the reading and +rendering of Bochart, a reading and rendering which no _Gothic_ or +_Semitic_ scholar has ever set aside. + +s. 195. _The hypothesis of an aboriginal Finnic population in Britain and +elsewhere._--A Celtic population of Britain preceded the Germanic. Are +there any reasons for believing that any older population preceded the +Celtic? + +The reasoning upon this point is preeminently that of the Scandinavian +(_i.e._ Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian) school of philology and ethnology. + +Arndt, I believe, was the first who argued that if the so-called +Indo-European nations were as closely connected with each other as they are +generally considered, their separation from the common stock must have been +subsequent to the occupation of Europe by some portion or other of the +human species--in other words, that this earlier population must have been +spread over those areas of which the Indo-Europeans took possession only at +a later period. + +That the divisions of such an earlier population were, _at least_, as +closely connected with each other as the different members of the so-called +Indo-European class, was a reasonable opinion. It was even reasonable to +suppose that they were _more_ closely connected; since the date of their +diffusion must have been nearer the time of the original dispersion of +mankind. + +If so, all Europe (the British Isles included) might have had as its +aborigines a family older than the oldest members of the Indo-European +stock; a family of which every member may now be extinct, or a family of +which remains may still survive. + +Where are such remains to be sought? In two sorts of localities-- {140} + +1. Parts _beyond_ the limits of the area occupied by the so-called +Indo-Europeans. + +2. Parts _within_ the limits of the so-called Indo-Europeans; but so +fortified by nature as to have been the stronghold of a retiring +population. + +What are the chief parts coming under the first of these conditions? + +_a._ The countries beyond the Indo-Europeans of the Scandinavian and +Slavonic areas, _i.e._ the countries of the Laplanders and Finnlanders. + +_b._ The countries beyond the Indo-Europeans of the Iranian stock, _i.e._ +the Dekkan, or the country of those natives of India (whatever they may be) +whose languages are not derived from the Sanscrit. + +What are parts coming under the second of these conditions? + +_a._ The Basque districts of the Pyrenees, where the language represents +that of the aborigines of Spain anterior to the conquest of the Roman. + +_b._ The Albanians.--Such the doctrine of the _continuity_ of an +_ante_-Indo-European population, from Cape Comorin to Lapland, and from +Lapland to the Pyrenees. There is _some_ philological evidence of this: +whether there is _enough_ is another matter. + +This view, which on its _philological_ side has been taken up by Rask, +Kayser, and the chief Scandinavian scholars, and which, whether right or +wrong, is the idea of a bold and comprehensive mind, as well as a powerful +instrument of criticism in the way of a provisional theory, has also been +adopted on its _physiological_ side by the chief Scandinavian anatomists +and palaeontologists--Retzius, Eschricht, Niilson, and others. Skulls +differing in shape from the Celtic skulls of Gaul, and from the Gothic +skulls of Germany and Scandinavia, have been found in considerable numbers; +and generally in burial-places of an apparently greater antiquity than +those which contain typical Celtic, or typical Gothic crania. Hence there +is some _anatomical_ as well as philological evidence: whether there is +enough is another question. + + * * * * * + + +{141} + +PART III. + +SOUNDS, LETTERS, PRONUNCIATION, SPELLING. + +-------- + +CHAPTER I. + +GENERAL NATURE OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS. + +s. 196. To two points connected with the subject of the following Chapter, +the attention of the reader is requested. + +I. In the comparison of sounds the ear is liable to be misled by the eye. + +The syllables _ka_ and _ga_ are similar syllables. The vowel is in each the +same, and the consonant is but slightly different. Now the words _ka_ and +_ga_ are more allied to each other than the words _ka_ and _ba_, _ka_ and +_ta_, &c., because the consonantal sounds of _k_ and _g_ are more allied +than the consonantal sounds of _k_ and _b_, _k_ and _t_. + +Comparing the syllables _ga_ and _ka_, we see the affinity between the +sounds, and we see it at the first glance. It lies on the surface, and +strikes the ear at once. + +It is, however, very evident that ways might be devised, or might arise +from accident, of concealing the likeness between the two sounds, or, at +any rate, of making it less palpable. One of such ways would be a faulty +mode of spelling. If instead of _ga_ we wrote _gha_ the following would be +the effect: the syllable would appear less simple than it really was; it +would look as if it consisted of three parts instead of two, and +consequently its affinity to _ka_ would seem less than it really was. It is +perfectly true that a little consideration would tell us that, as long as +the sound remained the same, the relation {142} of the two syllables +remained the same; 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. + +These last sounds appear to the eye to be double or compound. This is not +the case; they are simple single sounds, and not the sounds of _t_ followed +by _h_, as the spelling leads us to imagine. + +II. Besides improper modes of spelling, there is another way of concealing +the true nature of sounds. If I say that _ka_ and _ga_ are allied, the +alliance is manifest; since I compare the actual sounds. If I say _ka_ and +_gee_ are allied, the alliance is concealed; since I compare, not the +actual sounds, but only the names of the letters that express those sounds. +Now in the English language we have, amongst others, the following names of +letters that have a tendency to mislead:-- + +The sounds _fa_ and _va_ are allied. The names _eff_ and _vee_ conceal this +alliance. + +The sounds _sa_ and _za_ are allied. The names _ess_ and _zed_ conceal the +alliance. + +In comparing sounds it is advisable to have nothing to do either with +letters or names of letters. Compare the sounds themselves. + +In many cases it is sufficient, in comparing consonants, to compare +syllables that contain those consonants; _e.g._, to determine the relations +of _p_, _b_, _f_, _v_, we say _pa_, _ba_, _fa_, _va_; or for those of _s_ +and _z_, we say _sa_, _za_. Here we compare _syllables_, each consonant +being followed by a vowel. At times this is insufficient. We are often +obliged to isolate the consonant from its vowel, and bring our organs to +utter (or half utter) imperfect sounds of _p'_, _b'_, _t'_, _d'_. In doing +this we isolate the consonant. {143} + +s. 197. 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 fore part +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. 198. 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_, _g_, _s_, _z_, &c.) _Definitions_ +for the different sorts of articulate sounds have still to be laid down. In +place of these, we have general assertions concerning the properties and +qualities of the respective classes. Concerning the consonants as a class, +we may predicate one thing concerning the liquids, and concerning the +mutes, another. What the nature of these assertions is, will be seen after +the explanation of certain terms. + +s. 199. _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. {144} + +Let _b_, _v_, _d_, _g_, _z_, be similarly treated. The sound is no whisper, +but one at the natural tone of our voice. + +Now _p_, _f_, _t_, _k_, _s_ (with some others that will be brought forward +anon) are _sharp_, whilst _b_, _v_, &c. are _flat_. Instead of _sharp_, +some say _hard_, and instead of _flat_, some say _soft_. The Sanskrit terms +_sonant_ and _surd_ are, in a scientific point of view, the least +exceptionable. They have, however, the disadvantage of being pedantic. The +_tenues_ of the classics (as far as they go) are sharp, the _mediae_ flat. + +_Continuous and explosive._--Isolate the sounds of _b_, _p_, _t_, _d_, _k_, +_g_. Pronounce them. You have no power of prolonging the sounds, or of +resting upon them. They escape with the breath, and they escape at once. + +It is not so with _f_, _v_, _sh_, _zh_. Here the breath is transmitted by +degrees, and the sound can be drawn out and prolonged for an indefinite +space of time. Now _b_, _p_, _t_, &c. are explosive _f_, _v_, &c. +continuous. + +s. 200. 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. 201.--The letter _h_ is no articulate sound, but only a breathing. + +For the semivowels and the diphthongs, see the sequel. + + * * * * * + + +{145} + +CHAPTER II. + +SYSTEM OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS. + +s. 202.--The attention of the reader is now directed to the following +_foreign_ vowel sounds. + +1. _['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. _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. _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. 203. _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] (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] (Greek [Greek: +zeta]). {146} + +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]_ (Greek [Greek: kappa] and [Greek: gamma]). + +With these preliminary notices we may exhibit the system of the sixteen +mutes; having previously determined the meaning of two fresh terms, and +bearing in mind what was said concerning the words sharp and flat, +continuous and explosive. + +_Lene and aspirate._--From the sound of _p_ in _pat_, the sound of _f_ in +_fat_ differs in a certain degree. This difference is not owing to a +difference in their sharpness or flatness. Each is sharp. Neither is it +owing to a difference in their continuity or explosiveness; although, at +the first glance, such might appear to be the case. _F_ is continuous, +whilst _p_ is explosive. _S_, however, is continuous, and _s_, in respect +to the difference under consideration, is classed not with _f_ the +continuous sound but with _p_ the explosive one. I am unable to account for +the difference between _p_ and _f_. It exists: it is visible. It has been +expressed by a term. _P_ is called _lene_, _f_ is called _aspirate_. + + As _f_ is to _p_ so is _v_ to b. + As _v_ is to _b_ so is _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_. + _p_ _b_ _f_ _v_ + _t_ _d_ _th_ _dh_ + _k_ _g_ _[kappa]_ _[gamma]_ + _s_ _z_ _[sigma]_ _[zeta]_ + + _Sharp_. _Flat_. + _Lene_. _Aspirate_. _Lene_. _Aspirate_ + _p_ _f_ _b_ _v_ + _t_ _th_ _d_ _dh_ + _k_ _[kappa]_ _g_ _[gamma]_ + _s_ _[sigma]_ _z_ _[zeta]_ + +{147} + +I am not familiar enough with the early grammarians to know when the terms +_lene_ and _aspirate_ were first used. They were the Latin equivalents to +the Greek words [Greek: psilon] (_psilon_) and [Greek: dasu] (_dasy_) +respectively. The Greek terms are preferable. _They_ convey no determinate +idea, whereas the Latin terms convey a false one. The origin of the word +aspirate I imagine to be as follows. The Latin language, wanting both the +sound of the Greek _theta_, and the sign to express it (_[theta]_) rendered +it by _th_. This orthography engenders the false notion that _[theta]_ +differed from _[tau]_ by the addition of the aspirate _h_. To guard against +similar false notions, I rarely hereafter use the word aspirate without +qualifying it by the addition of the adjective _so-called_. + +All the so-called aspirates are continuous; and, with the exception of _s_ +and _z_, all the lenes are explosive. + +I believe that in the fact of each mute appearing in a fourfold form +(_i.e._ sharp, or flat, lene, or (so-called) aspirate), lies the essential +character of the mutes as opposed to the liquids. + +_Y_ and _w_.--These sounds, respectively intermediate to _[gamma]_ and _i_ +(the _ee_ in _feet_), and to _[upsilon]_ and _u_ (_oo_ in _book_), form a +transition from the vowels to the consonants. + +s. 204. It has been seen that the sixteen mutes are reducible to four +series. Of these series, _p_, _t_, _k_, _s_, may respectively be taken as +the types. Of the liquids it may be predicated as follows:-- + +1. That _m_ is allied to the series _p_.--The combination _inp_ has a +tendency to become _imp_. + +2. That _n_ is allied to the series _t_.--The combination _imt_ has a +tendency to become either _impt_, or _int_. + +3. That _l_ is allied to the series _k_.--The evidence of this lies deep in +comparative philology. + +4. That _r_ is allied to the series _s_.--The evidence of this is of the +same nature with that of the preceding assertion. + +The series _p_ and _k_ have this peculiarity.--They are connected with the +vowels through _w_ and _u_ (_oo_), and through _y_ and _i_ (_ee_) +respectively. + +s. 205. The French word _roi_ and the English words _oil_, {148} _house_, +are specimens of a fresh class of articulations; _viz._, of compound vowel +sounds or _diphthongs_. The diphthong _oi_ is the vowel _o_ modified, plus +the _semi_vowel _y_ (not the _vowel_ _i_) modified. The diphthongal sound +in _roi_ is the vowel _o_ modified, _plus_ the semivowel _w_ (not the vowel +_u_ or _oo_) modified. In _roi_ the semivowel element precedes, in _oil_ it +follows. In _roi_ it is the semivowel allied to series _p_; in _oil_ it is +the semivowel allied to series _k_. _The nature of the modification that +the component parts of a diphthong undergo has yet to be determined_; +although it is certain there is one. If it were not so, the articulations +would be _double_, not _compound_. + +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. 206. _Chest_, _jest_.--Here we have compound consonantal sounds. The +_ch_ in _chest_ is _t_ + _sh_ ([sigma]), the _j_ in _jest_ is _d_ + _zh_ +([zeta]). 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. 207. _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, of which +the combination _ng_ is a conventional mode of expressing. + +s. 208. Other terms, chiefly relating to the vowels, have still to be +explained. The _['e]_ of the French has been called _ferm['e]_, or _close_ +(Italian, _chiuso_). Its opposite, the _a_ in _fate_, is _open_. + +Compared with _a_ in _fate_, and the _o_ in _note_, _a_ in _father_, {149} +and the _aw_ in _bawl_, are _broad_, the vowels of _note_ and _fate_ being +_slender_. + +s. 209. 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 would fain 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 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_. + +To the preceding remarks the following statements may be added. + +1. That the words _independent_ and _dependent_ correspond with the terms +_perfect_ and _imperfect_ of the Hebrew grammarians. + +2. That the Hebrew grammars give us the truest notions respecting these +particular properties of vowels. + +The following sentences are copied from Lee's Hebrew Grammar, Art. 33, +34:--"By _perfect vowels_ is meant, vowels which, being preceded by a +consonant" (_or without being so preceded_), "will constitute a complete +syllable, as [Hebrew: BA] _b[=a]_. By _imperfect vowels_ is meant those +vowels which are not generally" (_never_) "found to constitute syllables +without either the addition of a consonant or of an accent. Such syllables, +therefore, must be either like [Hebrew: BDA] _bad_, or [Hebrew: BA] +_b[=a]_, _i.e._, followed by a consonant, or accompanied by an accent." For +further remarks on this subject, see the chapter on accent. + +s. 210. Before _i_, _e_, and _y_ of the English alphabet, and before _ue_ +and _oe_ German, the letters _c_ and _g_ have the tendency to assume the +sound and power of _s_ or _z_, of _sh_ or _zh_, of _ch_ or _j_; {150} in +other words, of becoming either _s_ or some sound allied to _s_. Compared +with _a_, _o_, and _u_ (as in _gat_, _got_, _gun_), which are _full_, _i_, +_e_, _y_, are _small_ vowels. + +It not every vowel that is susceptible of every modification. _I_ (_ee_) +and _u_ (_oo_) are incapable of becoming broad. _E_ in _bed_ (as I have +convinced myself), although both broad and slender, is incapable of +becoming independent. For the _u_ in _but_, and for the _oe_ of certain +foreign languages, I have no satisfactory systematic position. + +s. 211. _Vowel System._ + + _Broad._ | _Slender._ + | | + _Independent._ |_Independent._ | _Dependent._ + | | + _a_, in _father_ |_a_, in _fate_ |_a_, in _fat_. + |_e ferm['e]_, _long_ |_e ferm['e]_, _short_. + _e_, in _meine_, Germ.| |_e_, in _bed_. + |_ee_, in _feet_ |_i_, in _pit_. + |_ue_, of the German, _long_|the same, _short_. + |_oo_, in _book_ |_ou_, in _could_. + |_o chiuso_ |the same, _short_. + _aw_, in _bawl_ |_o_, in _note_ |_o_, in _note_. + +From these, the semivowels _w_ and _y_ make a transition to the consonants +_v_ and the so-called aspirate of _g_ ([gamma], not being in English), +respectively. + +s. 212. _System of Consonants._ + + _Liquids._ | _Mutes._ | _Semivowels._ + | | + | _Lene._ | _Aspirate._ | + | | | + | _Sharp._ _Flat._ | _Sharp._ _Flat._ | + | | | + _m_ | _p_ _b_ | _f_ _v_ | _w_ + _n_ | _t_ _d_ | _th_ _dh_ | + _l_ | _k_ _g_ | [kappa] [gamma] | _y_ + _r_ | _s_ _z_ | [sigma] [zeta] | + +s. 213. Concerning the vowel system I venture no assertion. The consonantal +system I conceive to have been exhibited above in its whole fulness. The +number of mutes, _specifically_ distinct, I consider to be sixteen and no +more: the number of liquids, four. What then are the powers of the numerous +letters in alphabets like those of Arabia and Armenia? What {151} is the +German _ch_, and Irish _gh_? _Varieties_ of one or other of the sounds +exhibited above, and not articulations specifically distinct. + +s. 214. There is a _difference between a connexion in phonetics and a +connexion in grammar_.--Phonetics is a word expressive of the +subject-matter of the present chapter. The present chapter determines +(amongst other things) the systematic relation of articulate sounds. The +word _ph[^o]naeticos_ ([Greek: phonetichos]) signifies _appertaining to +articulate sounds_. It is evident that between sounds like _b_ and _v_, _s_ +and _z_, there is a connexion in phonetics. Now in the grammar of languages +there is often a change, or a permutation of letters: _e.g._, in the words +_tooth_, _teeth_, the vowel, in _price_, _prize_, the consonant, is +changed. Here there is a connexion in grammar. + +That the letters most closely allied in phonetics should be most frequently +interchanged in grammar, is what, on _[`a] priori_ grounds, we most +naturally are led to expect. And that such is _often_ the case, the study +of languages tells us. That, however, it is always so, would be a hasty and +an erroneous assertion. The Greek language changes _p_ into _f_. Here the +connexion in phonetics and the connexion in language closely coincide. The +Welsh language changes _p_ into _m_. Here the connexion in phonetics and +the connexion in language do _not_ closely coincide. + + * * * * * + + +{152} + +CHAPTER III. + +OF CERTAIN COMBINATIONS OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS. + +s. 215. Certain combinations of articulate sounds are incapable of being +pronounced. The following rule is one that, in the forthcoming pages, will +frequently be referred to. _Two (or more) _mutes_, of different degrees of +sharpness and flatness, are incapable of coming together in the same +syllable._ For instance, _b_, _v_, _d_, _g_, _z_, &c. being flat, and _p_, +_f_, _t_, _k_, _s_, &c. being sharp, such combinations as _abt_, _avt_, +_apd_, _afd_, _agt_, _akd_, _atz_, _ads_, &c., are unpronounceable. +_Spelt_, indeed, they may be; but attempts at pronunciation end in a +_change_ of the combination. In this case either the flat letter is changed +to its sharp equivalent (_b_ to _p_, _d_ to _t_, &c.) or _vice vers[^a]_ +(_p_ to _b_, _t_ to _d_). The combinations _abt_, and _agt_, to be +pronounced, must become either _apt_ or _abd_, or else _akt_ or _agd_. + +For determining which of the two letters shall be changed, in other words, +whether it shall be the first that accommodates itself to the second, or +the second that accommodates itself to the first, there are no general +rules. This is settled by the particular habit of the language in +consideration. + +The word _mutes_ in the second sentence of this section must be dwelt on. +It is only with the _mutes_ that there is an impossibility of pronouncing +the heterogeneous combinations above mentioned. The liquids and the vowels +are flat; but the liquids and vowels, although flat, may be followed by a +sharp consonant. If this were not the case, the combinations _ap_, _at_, +_alp_, _alt_, &c. would be unpronounceable. + +The semivowels, although flat, admit of being followed by a sharp +consonant. + +The law exhibited above may be called the law of accommodation. {153} + +Combinations like _gt_, _kd_, &c., may be called incompatible combinations. + +s. 216. _Unstable combinations._--That certain sounds in combination with +others have a tendency to undergo changes, may be collected from the +observation of our own language, as we find it spoken by those around us, +or by ourselves. The _ew_ in _new_ is a sample of what may be called an +unsteady or unstable combination. There is a natural tendency to change it +either into _oo_ (_noo_) or _yoo_ (_nyoo_); perhaps also into _yew_ +(_nyew_). + +s. 217. _Effect of the semivowel _y_ on certain letters when they precede +it._--Taken by itself the semivowel _y_, followed by a vowel (_ya_, _yee_, +_yo_, _you_, &c.), forms a stable combination. Not so, however, if it be +preceded by a consonant, of the series _t_, _k_, or _s_, as _tya_, _tyo_; +_dya_, _dyo_; _kya_, _kyo_; _sya_, _syo_. There then arises an unstable +combination. _Sya_ and _syo_ we pronounce as _sha_ and _sho_; _tya_ and +_tyo_ we pronounce as _cha_ and _ja_ (_i.e._ _tsh_, _dzh_.). This we may +verify from our pronunciation of words like _sure_, _picture_, _verdure_ +(_shoor_, _pictshoor_, _verdzhoor_), having previously remarked that the +_u_ in those words is not sounded as _oo_ but as _yoo_. The effect of the +semivowel _y_, taken with instability of the combination _ew_, accounts for +the tendency to pronounce _dew_ as if written _jew_. + +s. 218. _The evolution of new sounds._--To an English ear the sound of the +German _ch_ falls strange. To an English organ it is at first difficult to +pronounce. The same is the case with the German vowels _oe_ and _ue_ and +with the French sounds _u_, _eu_, &c. + +To a German, however, and a Frenchman, the sound of the English _th_ +(either in _thin_ or _thine_) is equally a matter of difficulty. + +The reason of this lies in the fact of the respective sounds being absent +in the German, French, and English languages; since sounds are easy or hard +to pronounce just in proportion as we have been familiarised with them. + +There is no instance of a new sound being introduced at once into a +language. Where they originate at all, they are _evolved_, not imported. +{154} + +s. 219. _Evolution of sounds._--Let there be a language where there is no +such a sound as that of _z_, but where there is the sound of _s_. The sound +of _z_ may be evolved under (amongst others) the following conditions. 1. +Let there be a number of words ending in the flat mutes; as _slab_, _stag_, +_stud_, &c. 2. Let a certain form (the plural number or the genitive case) +be formed by the addition of _is_ or _es_; as _slabis_, _stages_, _studes_, +&c. 3. Let the tendency that words have to contract eject the intermediate +vowel, _e_ or _i_, so that the _s_ of the inflexion (a _sharp_ mute) and +the _b_, _d_, _g_, &c. of the original word (_flat_ mutes) be brought into +juxta-position, _slabs_, _studs_, _stags_. There is then an incompatible +termination, and one of two changes must take place; either _b_, _d_, or +_g_ must become _p_, _t_, or _k_ (_slaps_, _staks_, _stuts_); or _s_ must +become _z_ (_stagz_, _studz_, _slabz_). In this latter case _z_ is evolved. +Again, + +Let there be a language wherein there are no such sounds as _sh_, _ch_ +(_tsh_), or _j_ (_dzh_); but where there are the sounds of _s_, _t_, _d_, +and _y_. + +Let a change affect the unstable combinations _sy_, _ty_, _dy_. From this +will arise the evolved sounds of _sh_, _ch_, and _j_. + +The phenomena of evolution help to determine the pronunciation of dead +languages. + +s. 220. _On the value of a sufficient system of sounds._--In certain +imaginable cases, a language may be materially affected by the paucity of +its elementary articulate sounds. + +In a given language let there be the absence of the sound _z_, the other +conditions being those noted in the case of the words _stag_, _slab_, +_stud_, &c. Let the intermediate vowel be ejected. Then, instead of the _s_ +being changed into an evolved _z_, let the other alternative take place; so +that the words become _staks_, _slaps_, _stuts_. In this latter case we +have an alteration of the original word, brought about by the insufficiency +of the system of articulate sounds. + +s. 221. _Double consonants rare._--It cannot be too clearly understood that +in words like _pitted_, _stabbing_, _massy_, &c. there is no real +reduplication of the sounds of _t_, _b_, and _s_, respectively. Between the +words _pitted_ (as with the small-pox) and _pitied_ (as being an object of +pity) there is a difference in {155} spelling only. In speech the words are +identical. _The reduplication of the consonant is in English, and the +generality of languages, a conventional mode of expressing upon paper the +shortness (dependence) of the vowel that precedes._ + +s. 222. Real reduplications of consonants, _i.e._, reduplications of their +_sound_, are, in all languages, extremely rare. I am fully aware of certain +statements made respecting the Laplandic and Finlandic languages, _viz._, +that doubled consonants are, in them, of common occurrence. Notwithstanding +this, I have an impression that it is generally under one condition that +true reduplication takes place. In compound and derived words, where the +original root _ends_, and the superadded affix _begins_ with the same +letter, there is a reduplication of the sound, and not otherwise. In the +word _soulless_, the _l_ is doubled to the ear as well as to the eye; and +it is a false pronunciation to call it _souless_ (_soless_). In the +"Deformed Transformed" it is made to rhyme with _no less_, improperly. + + "Clay, not dead but soulless, + Though no mortal man would choose thee, + An immortal no less + Deigns not to refuse thee." + +In the following words, all of which are compounds, we have true specimens +of the doubled consonant. + + _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. 223. _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. {156} + +In our own language the _true_ aspirates, like the true duplications, are +found only in compound words; and there they are often slurred in the +pronunciation. + + We find _p_ and _h_ in the words _haphazard_, _upholder_. + -- _b_ and _h_ -- _abhorrent_, _cub-hunting_. + -- _f_ and _h_ -- _knife-handle_, _offhand_. + -- _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_ -- _well-head_, _foolhardy_. + -- _m_ and _h_ -- _Amherst_. + -- _n_ and _h_ -- _unhinge_, _inherent_, _unhappy_. + +Now in certain languages the _true_ aspirates are of common occurrence, +_i.e._, sounds like the _t_ in _nuthook_, the _ph_ in _haphazard_, &c., are +as frequent as the sounds of _p_, _b_, _s_, &c. In the spelling of these +sounds by means of the English we are hampered by the circumstance of _th_ +and _ph_ being already used in a different sense. + + * * * * * + + +{157} + +CHAPTER IV. + +EUPHONY; THE PERMUTATION AND THE TRANSITION OF LETTERS. + +s. 224. 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 (mark, not an absolute +necessity) to insert an intervening sound. + +In English, the form which the Latin word _numerus_ takes is _num_b_er_; in +Spanish, _nom_b_re_. 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). The province of euphony has not +been very accurately determined. + +s. 225. In the word _number_, _nombre_, the letter inserted was _b_; and +for _b_ being the particular letter employed, there is a reason derived +from the _system_ of articulate sounds. + +1. That the letter inserted should be a consonant is evident. The _vowel_ +_e_ (in _num_e_rus_) had been previously ejected. + +2. That it should be a mute is evident. A liquid would have given the +unstable or unpronounceable combinations _mnr_, _mlr_, _mrr_, _mmr_. + +3. That it should be a consonant, either of series _b_ or of series _s_, +was natural; it being series _b_ and series _s_ with which _m_ and _r_ are +respectively connected. + +4. That it should be a consonant of series _b_, rather than one of series +_s_, we collect from the fact that _msr_ (_numsrus_) or _mzr_ (_numzrus_) +give inharmonious, and, consequently, unstable combinations. {158} + +5. That of the _b_ series, it should be _b_ or _v_ (flat) rather than _p_ +or _f_ (sharp), we infer from the fact of _m_ and _r_ both being flat. + +6. Of _v_ and _b_, the latter alone gives a stable combination, so that we +have the Spanish form _nom_b_re_, and not _nom_v_re_. + +In this we have an illustration of the use of attending to the nature and +connections of articulate sounds in general. + +s. 226. The affinity of _m_ for the series _b_, of _n_ for the series _t_, +gives occasion to further euphonic changes. The combinations _mt_, _md_, +_mth_, _mdh_, are unstable. The syllables _emt_, _emd_, are liable to one +of two modifications. Either _p_ or _b_ will be inserted, and so make them +_empt_ (as in _tempt_), _embd_ (as in _Embden_), or else the _m_ will +become _n_, forming the syllable _ent_, _end_, _enth_, _endh_. + +Similar tendencies, in a certain degree, affect the combinations _enp_, +_enb_. They are liable to become _emp_, or _emb_. Any one may see that the +word _enperor_ embarrasses the utterance. + +s. 227. The combination _tupt_ is stable, so also is the combination +_tuft_. But the combination _tupth_ is unstable: since the _p_ is lene, the +_th_ is a (so-called) aspirate. Hence arises a process of accommodation by +which the word becomes either _tupt_ or _tufth_ (_tufth_). + +In respect to the unstable combination _tupth_, we may observe this, _viz._ +that the ways of altering it are two. Either the first letter may be +accommodated to the second, _tufth_, or the second may be accommodated to +the first, _tupt_. Which of these two changes shall take place is +determined by the particular habit of the language. In Greek we add to the +radical syllable [Greek: tup]-, the inflectional syllable -[Greek: then]. +The _first_ letter, [pi], is accommodated to the second, [theta], and the +word becomes [Greek: tuphthen] (_tyfthaen_), as in [Greek: etuphthen] +(_etyfthaen_). In English we add to the radical syllable _stag_, the +inflectional syllable _s_. Here the _second_ letter is accommodated to the +first, and the resulting word is not _staks_, but _stagz_. + +s. 228. The Irish Gaelic, above most other languages, illustrates a +euphonic principle that modifies the vowels of a word. The vowels _a_, _o_, +_u_, are full, whilst _i_, _e_, _y_, are small. Now if to a syllable +containing a small vowel, as _buil_, there be added {159} a syllable +containing a broad one, as _-am_, a change takes place. Either the first +syllable is accommodated to the second, or the second to the first; so that +the vowels respectively contained in them are either both full or both +small. Hence arises, in respect to the word quoted, either the form +_bu_a_l_a_m_, or else the form _bu_i_l_i_m_. + +s. 229. 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. The following 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_. + +{160} + +_Permutation of Consonants._ + + _f_ to _v_, _life_, _live_; _calf_, _calves_. + _th_ to _dh_, _breath_, _to breathe_. + _dh_ 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. Important changes are undergone by +the sounds _k_, _g_, and the allied ones _nk_, _ng_, _y_, as will be seen +in the chapter on verbs. + +_Permutation of Combinations._ + + _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_), _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. + +s. 230. In all the words above the change of sound has been brought about +by the grammatical inflection of the word wherein it occurs. This is the +case with the words _life_ and _live_, and with all the rest. With the +German word _leben_, compared with the corresponding word _live_, in +English, the change is similar. It is brought about, however, not by a +grammatical inflection, but by a difference of time, and by a difference of +place. This indicates the distinction between the permutation of letters +and the transition of letters. In dealing with permutations, we compare +different parts of speech; in dealing with transitions, we compare +different languages, or different stages of a single language. + + * * * * * + + +{161} + +CHAPTER V. + +ON THE FORMATION OF SYLLABLES. + +s. 231. 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 _v_ in _fever_, belong to the first or the second +syllable? Are the words to be divided thus, _ri-ver_, _fe-ver_? or thus, +_riv-er_, _fev-er_? + +The solution of the question lies by no means on the surface. + +In the first place, the case is capable of being viewed in two points of +view--an etymological and a phonetic one. + +That the _c_ and _r_ in _become_, _berhymed_, &c. belong to the second +syllable, we determine at once by taking the words to pieces; whereby we +get the words _come_ and _rhymed_ in an isolated independent form. But this +fact, although it settles the point in etymology, leaves it as it was in +phonetics; since it in nowise follows, that, because the _c_ in the +_simple_ word _come_ is exclusively attached to the letter that follows it, +it is, in the _compound_ word _become_, exclusively attached to it also. + +To the following point of structure in the consonantal sounds the reader's +attention is particularly directed. + +1. Let the vowel _a_ (as in _fate_) be sounded.--2. Let it be followed by +the consonant _p_, so as to form the syllable _[=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 {162} +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 its inaccuracy, before he proceeds to the +conclusions that will be drawn from it. + +The account, however, being recognised, we have in the current natural +sound of _p_ two elements:-- + +1. That formed by the current of air and the closure of the lips, as in +_[=a]p_. 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 +_p[=a]_. 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. {163} + +Let the sound of breath arrested be expressed by [pi], and that of breath +escaping be expressed by [varpi], the two together form the current natural +sound _p_ ([pi]+[varpi]=_p_). + +Thus _[=a]p_ (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 each sound being expressed by a separate sign, the word +_happy_ is divided thus, _ha[pi]-[varpi]y_; and that such is the case with +all consonants between two syllables. The _whole_ consonant belongs neither +to one syllable nor the other. Half of it belongs to each. The +reduplication of the _p_ in _happy_, the _t_ in _pitted_, &c, is a mere +point of spelling, of which more will be said in the chapter on +orthography. + + * * * * * + + +{164} + +CHAPTER VI. + +ON QUANTITY. + +s. 232. The dependent vowels, as the _a_ in _fat_, _i_ in _fit_, _u_ in +_but_, _o_ in _not_, have this character; _viz._ they are all uttered with +rapidity, and 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_, _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 _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. 233. The division of _vowels_ into long and short coincides _nearly_ +with the division of them into independent and dependent. Mark the word +_vowels_, and mark the word _nearly_. In the length and shortness of vowels +there are degrees. This is especially the case with the broad vowels. The +_a_ in _father_ is capable of being pronounced either very quickly, or very +slowly. It may be attend most rapidly and yet preserve its broad character, +_i.e._, become neither the _a_ in _fat_, nor the _a_ in _fate_. {165} + +In the independence and dependence of vowels there are no degrees. + +Subject to the views laid down in the next section, the vowel _ee_ in +_seeing_ is long, and it is certainly independent. Whether the _syllable +see-_ be long is another question. + +1. All long vowels are independent, but all independent vowels are not +long. + +2. All dependent vowels are short, but all short vowels are not dependent. + +Clear notions upon these matters are necessary for determining the +structure of the English and classical metres. + +s. 234. The qualified manner in which it was stated that the _vowel_ in the +word _seeing_ was long, and the attention directed to the word _vowels_ in +the preceding section, arose from a distinction, that is now about to be +drawn, between the length of _vowels_ and the length of _syllables_. + +The independent vowel in the syllable _see-_ is long; and long it remains, +whether it stand as it is, or be followed by a consonant, as in _seen_, or +by a vowel, as in _see-ing_. + +The dependent vowel in the word _sit_ is short. If followed by a vowel it +becomes unpronounceable, except as the _ea_ in _seat_ or the _i_ in +_sight_. By a consonant, however, it may be followed, and still retain its +dependent character and also its shortness. Such is the power it has in the +word quoted, _sit_. Followed by a _second_ consonant, it still retains its +shortness, _e.g._, _sits_. Whatever the comparative length of the +_syllables_, _see_ and _seen_, _sit_ and _sits_, may be, the length of +their respective _vowels_ is the same. + +Now, if we determine the character of the syllable by the character of the +vowel, all syllables are short wherein there is a short vowel, and all are +long wherein there is a long one. Measured by the quantity of the vowel the +word _sits_ is short, and the syllable _see-_ in _seeing_ is long. + +But it is well known that this view is not the view commonly taken of the +syllables _see_ (in _seeing_) and _sits_. It is well known, that, in the +eyes of a classical scholar, the _see_ (in _seeing_) is short, and that in +the word _sits_ the _i_ is long. The classic differs from the Englishman +thus,--_He measures his {166} 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. + +I. That vowels long by nature may _appear_ to become short by position, and +_vice vers[^a]_. + +II. That, by a laxity of language, the _vowel_ may be said to have changed +its quantity, whilst it is the _syllable_ alone that has been altered. + +III. That, if one person measures his quantities by the vowels, and another +by the syllables, what is short to the one, shall be long to the other, and +_vice vers[^a]_. The same is the case with nations. + +IV. That one of the most essential differences between the English and the +classical languages is that the quantities (as far as they go) of the first +are measured by the vowel, those of the latter by the syllable. To a Roman +the word _monument_ consists of two short syllables and one long one; to an +Englishman it contains three short syllables. + +These remarks are appreciated when we consider the comparative characters +of the classical and the English prosody. + + * * * * * + + +{167} + +CHAPTER VII. + +ON ACCENT. + +s. 235. 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_, _beso['u]ght_, +_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--_R['e]gular_, _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. + +A great number of words are distinguished by the accent alone. The +following list is from Nares' Orthoepy, a work to which the reader is +referred. + + 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. + +{168} + +That class of words that by a change of accent are converted from nouns +into verbs (_s['u]rvey_, _surv['e]y_, _c['o]ntrast_, _contr['a]st_, &c.) +will be noticed more at large in the Chapter on Derivation. + +s. 236. In words like _th['i]nking_, _f['o]xes_, _lon'ger_, _len'gthen_, +&c. we have two parts; first the original word, the root, or the radical +part, as _think_, _fox_, _long_, _length_, &c.; and next, the inflectional, +or the subordinate part, _-ing_, _-es_, _-er_, _-en_, &c. + +To assert as a universal rule that the _accent is always on the root, and +never on the subordinate part of a word_, is too much. Although in the +_English_ language such an assertion (with one exception) is found true; by +the French and other languages it is invalidated. + +In words like _len'g-then-ing_, we have a _second_ inflectional or +subordinate syllable; and the accent remains in its original place, +_absolutely, but not relatively_. _It is all the farther from the end of +the word._ Besides indicating the propriety of determining the place of the +accent by counting from the end, rather than the beginning of a word, this +circumstance indicates something else. + +Imagine the English participles to be declined, and to possess cases, +formed by the addition of fresh syllables. In this case the word +_len'gthening_ would become a quadri-syllable. But to throw the accent to +the fourth syllable from the end is inconvenient. Hence a necessity of +removing it from the radical, and placing it on an inflectional syllable. + +The German word _l['e]ben_ (to _live_) illustrates the foregoing sentence. +_L['e]b-_ is the root, _l['e]b-end_=_living_, from whence +_leb['e]ndig_=_lively_ (with the accent on an inflectional syllable), +although this last word might without inconvenience have been accented on +the first syllable; that being only the third from the end. + +Confusion between the radical and inflectional syllables of a word, arising +from the situation of the accent, may work the deterioration of a language. + +s. 237. In _t['y]rant_ and _pres['u]me_, we deal with single words; and in +each _word_ we determine which _syllable_ is accented. {169} 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. I.) + +s. 238. Accent plays an important part in determining the nature of certain +compound words--For this, see the Chapter on Composition. + +It also plays an important part in determining the nature of the English +metres--See Prosody. + +Thirdly (the subject of the present section), it plays an important part in +all systems of orthography. + +The quotation from Professor Lee's Hebrew Grammar, in p. 149, is referred +to; and a particular attention to a somewhat difficult subject is +requisite. + +The _u_ in the word _monument_ is what a classic would call _short_. + +The second _syllable_ in the word _monument_ is what a classical scholar +would call _short_. The vowel is _short_, and the syllable taken altogether +is _short_. Herein it agrees with the first syllable _mon-_. It differs, +however, from the syllable _mon-_ in being destitute of an accent, +_m['o]nument_. With the third syllable _-ment_, it agrees in the eyes of an +Englishman, but differs in the eyes of a scholar. The vowels _u_ and _e_ +are equally short, and, as the Englishman measures by the vowel {170} the +syllables _-u_ and _-ment_ are both short. Not so, however, with the +scholar. He measures by the syllable and determines that the _e_, although +naturally a short vowel, is made _long_ by position. However, in being each +destitute of an accent the syllables _-u_ and _-ment_ agree. Be it remarked +a second time that the accent in _m['o]nument_ lies on the first syllable. + +Now the _-u_ in _m['o]nument_ although _short_, is not _dependent_. + +If, however, the syllable _-nu_ take an accent; that is, if the place of +the accent be removed from the first to the second syllable, the vowel _u_ +still being kept short, we have a word which we spell thus, _monumment_. +Now the _u_ in _monumment_ is not only short, but dependent. It is upon +this effect of an accent that the quotation from Lee's Hebrew Grammar, p. +149, especially bears. + +And now two questions arise:--1. How is it that the accent has the effect +of rendering such a syllable as the _u_ in _monumment_ dependent? 2. Why do +we in spelling such a syllable double the consonant? + +An accent falling upon a syllable must, of necessity, do one of two things: +it must affect the vowel, or it must affect the consonant. If it affect the +vowel, the vowel becomes the predominant part of the syllable, as in +_m['o]nooment_; but, if it affect the consonant, the consonant becomes the +predominant part of the syllable, as _monum'ment_. + +In words like _monumment_ the consonant is, strictly speaking, as single as +it is in _monument_, or _monooment_. Its _absolute_ sound is the same. Not +so its _relative_ sound. This is exaggerated by two circumstances:--1, The +comparative shortness of the vowel _u_; 2, the fact of the accent falling +on it. The increased relative importance of the letter _m_ in the word +_monumment_ is mistaken for a reduplication of the sound. This is the +reason why in most languages the shortness of a vowel is expressed by the +doubling of the consonant following; this doubling being no true +reduplication of the sound, but a mere orthographical conventionality. + +s. 239. Accent and quantity, as may have been collected from pp. 164-167, +do _not_ coincide. Nothing shows this more {171} clearly than words like +the adjective _aug['u]st_, and the substantive _A['u]gust_ (the month), +where the quantity remains the same, although the accent is different. The +following quotation from Mr. Guest's English Rhythms is made for the sake +of four things:-- + +1. Of showing that the generality of writers have the credit of confusing +accent with quantity-- + +2. Of showing that there is a reason for such a confusion having existed-- + +3. Of indicating the propriety of the expressions in italics--It is not +stated that the consonant _c_ is doubled, but that it is added to the first +syllable. The difference lies, not in its reduplication, but in its +distribution. + +4. Of taking a slight exception--A syllable (accented or unaccented) must +be either independent or dependent; if the latter, then in most immediate +contact with the consonant that follows. + + "Besides the increase of loudness, and the sharper tone which + distinguishes the accented syllable, there is also a tendency to dwell + upon it, or, in other words, to lengthen its quantity. We cannot + increase the loudness or the sharpness of a tone without a certain + degree of muscular action: and to put the muscles in motion requires + time. It would seem that the time required for producing a perceptible + increase in the loudness or sharpness of a tone is greater than that of + pronouncing some of our shorter syllables. If we attempt, for instance, + to throw the accent on the first syllable of the word _become_, we must + either lengthen the vowel, and pronounce the word _bee-come_, _or add + the adjoining consonant to the first syllable, and so pronounce the + word_ _bec-ome_. We often find it convenient to lengthen the quantity + even of the longer syllables, when we wish to give them a very strong + and marked accent. Hence, no doubt, arose the vulgar notion, that + accent always lengthens the quantity of a syllable. + + "It is astonishing how widely this notion has misled men, whose + judgment, in most other matters of criticism, it would be very unsafe + to question. Our earlier writers, almost to a man, confound accent with + quantity."--B. i. C. iv. + + * * * * * + + +{172} + +CHAPTER VIII. + +THE PRINCIPLES OF ORTHOEPY. + +s. 240. The present chapter is one, not upon the details of the +pronunciation of the English language, but upon the principles of orthoepy. +For the details of pronunciation the reader is referred to Nares' Orthoepy, +and to the common pronouncing dictionaries, with the preliminary +recommendation to use them with caution. _Orthoepy_, a word derived from +the Greek _orthon_ (_upright_), and _epos_ (_a word_), signifies the right +utterance of words. Orthoepy differs from orthography by determining how +words are spoken, whereas orthography decides how they are spelt. The one +is a question of speech, the other a question of spelling. Orthography +presupposes orthoepy. + +s. 241. Of pronunciation there are two kinds, the colloquial and the +rhetorical. In common conversation we pronounce the _i_ in _wind_, like the +_i_ in _bit_; in rehearsing, or in declamation, however, we pronounce it +like the _i_ in _bite_; that is, we give it a diphthongal sound. In reading +the Scriptures we say _bless['e]d_; in current speech we say _blest_. It is +the same with many words occurring in poetry. + +s. 242. Errors in pronunciation are capable of being classified. In the +first place, they may be arranged according to their situation. The man who +pronounces the verb _to surv['e]y_, as if it was _s['u]rvey_ (that is, with +the accent on the wrong syllable), errs in respect to the accentuation of +the word; the situation, or seat of his error, being the accent. To say +_or[=a]tor_ instead of _or[)a]tor_ is to err in respect to the quantity of +the word, the seat of the error being in the quantity; and to pronounce the +_a_ in _father_, as it is pronounced in Yorkshire, or the _s_ in _sound_, +as it is pronounced in Devonshire (that is, as _z_), is to err in {173} the +matter of the articulate sounds. To mispronounce a word because it is +misspelt[34] is only indirectly an error of orthoepy. It is an error, not +so much of orthoepy, as of orthography; and to give a wrong inflection to a +word is not bad pronunciation but bad grammar. For practical purposes, +however, many words that are really points of grammar and of orthography, +may be dealt with as points of orthoepy. + +That the preceding classification is natural I am induced to believe by the +following circumstances. Errors in the way of articulation generally arise +from a source different from those of accent and of quantity. Errors in +accent and quantity are generally referable to insufficient grammatical or +etymological knowledge, whilst the errors of articulation betray a +provincial dialect. + +The misdivision of syllables, an orthoepical error of a fourth kind, has in +the English, and perhaps in other languages, given rise to a peculiar class +of words. There have been those who have written _a nambassador_ for _an +ambassador_, misdividing the syllables, and misdistributing the sound of +the letter _n_. The double form (_a_ and _an_) of the English indefinite +article, encourages this misdivision. Now, in certain words an error of +this kind has had a permanent influence. The English word _nag_ is, in +Danish, _oeg_; the _n_, in English, having originally belonged to the +indefinite _an_, which preceded it. The words, instead of being divided +thus, _an ag_, were divided thus, _a nag_, and the fault became +perpetuated. That the Danish is the true form we collect, firstly, from the +ease with which the English form is accounted for, and, secondly, from the +old Saxon form _ehu_, Latin _equus_. In _adder_ we have the process +reversed. The true form is _nadder_, old English; _natter_, German. Here +the _n_ is taken from the substantive and added to the article. In _newt_ +and _eft_ we have each form. The list of words of this sort can be +increased. + +s. 243. In the second place, faults of pronunciation may be arranged +according to their cause. + +{174} + +1. _The fault of incompetent enunciation._--A person who says _sick_ for +_thick_, or _elebben_ for _eleven_, does so, not because he knows no +better, but because he cannot enounce the right sounds of _th_ and _v_. He +is _incompetent_ to it. His error is not one of ignorance. It is an +acoustic or a phonetic defect. As such it differs from-- + +2. _The fault of erroneous enunciation._--This is the error of a person who +talks of _jocholate_ instead of _chocolate_. It is not that he _cannot_ +pronounce rightly, but that he mistakes the nature of the sound required. +Still more the person who calls _a hedge_ _a nedge_, and _an edge_ _a +hedge_. + +s. 244. Incompetent enunciation, and erroneous enunciation are, however, +only the proximate and immediate causes of bad orthoepy. Amongst the remote +causes (the immediate causes of _erroneous_ enunciation) are the following. + +I. _Undefined notions as to the language to which a word belongs._--The +flower called _anemone_ is variously pronounced. Those who know Greek say +_anem[=o]ne_, speaking as if the word was written _anemohny_. The mass say, +_anem[)o]ne_, speaking as if the word was written _anemmony_. Now, the +doubt here is as to the language of the word. If it be Greek, it is +_anem[=o]ne_. + + [Greek: Haima rhodon tiktei, ta de dakrua tan anemonan]. + + BION. + +And if it be English, it is (on the score of analogy) as undoubtedly +_an['e]mmony_. The pronunciation of the word in point is determined when we +have determined the language of it. + +II. _Mistakes as to fact, the language of a word being determined._--To +know the word _anem[=o]ne_ to be Greek, and to use it as a Greek word, but +to call it _anem[)o]ny_, is not to be undecided as to a matter of language, +but to be ignorant as to a matter of quantity. + +III. _Neglect of analogy._--Each and all of the following words, _orator_, +_theatre_, _senator_, &c. are in the Latin language, from whence they are +derived, accented on the second syllable; as _or['a]tor_, _the['a]tre_, +_sen['a]tor_. In English, on the contrary, they are accented on the first; +as _['o]rator_, _th['e]atre_, {175} _s['e]nator_. The same is the case with +many other words similarly derived. They similarly suffer a change of +accent. So many words do this, that it is the rule in English for words to +throw their accent from the second syllable (counting from the end of the +word) to the third. It was on the strength of this rule,--in other words, +on the analogies of _orator_, &c., that the English pronunciation of the +Greek word [Greek: anemone] was stated to be _an['e]mmone_. Now, to take a +word derived from the Latin, and to look to its original quantity only, +without consulting the analogies of other words similarly derived, is to be +neglectful of the analogies of our own language, and attentive to the +quantities of a foreign one. + +These, amongst others, the immediate causes of erroneous enunciation, have +been adduced not for the sake of exhausting, but for the sake of +illustrating the subject. + +s. 245. In matters of orthoepy it is the usual custom to appeal to one of +the following standards. + +I. _The authority of scholars._--This is of value up to a certain point +only. The fittest person for determining the classical pronunciation of a +word like _anemone_ is the classical scholar; but the mere classical +scholar is far from being the fittest person to determine the analogies +that such a word follows in English. + +II. _The usage of educated bodies, such as the bar, the pulpit, the senate, +_&c.__--These are recommended by two circumstances: 1. The chance that each +member of them is sufficiently a scholar in foreign tongues to determine +the original pronunciation of derived words, and sufficiently a critic in +his own language to be aware of the analogies that are in operation. 2. The +quantity of imitators that, irrespective of the worth of his pronunciation, +each individual can carry with him. On this latter ground the stage is a +sort of standard. + +The objection to the authority of educated bodies is its impracticability. +It is only the usage of the component individuals that can be determined. +Of these many may carry with them the dialects of their provinces, so that, +although good standards on points of accent and quantity, they are bad ones +upon points of articulation. {176} + +III. _The authority of societies constituted with the express purpose of +taking cognizance of the language of the country._--These, although +recognized in Italy and other parts of the Continent, have only been +proposed in Great Britain. Their inefficacy arises from the inutility of +attempting to fix that which, like language, is essentially fluctuating. + +IV. _The authority of the written language._--The value of this may be +collected from the chapter on orthography. + +V. These, amongst others, the standards that have been appealed to, are +adduced not for the sake of exhausting the subject, but to show the +unsatisfactory nature of authority in matters of speech. + +s. 246. For a person, on a point of pronunciation, to trust to his own +judgment, he must be capable, with every word that he doubts about, of +discussing three questions:-- + +I. _The abstract or theoretical propriety of a certain pronunciation._--To +determine this he must have a sufficient knowledge of foreign tongues and a +sufficient knowledge of English analogies. He must also have some test by +which he can determine to what language an equivocal word belongs. Of tests +for this purpose, one, amongst others, is the following:--Let it be asked +whether the word _lens_ (in Optics) is English or Latin; whether it is to +be considered as a naturalised word or a strange one. The following fact +will give an answer. There is of the word _lens_ a plural number, and this +plural number is the English form _lenses_, and not the Latin form +_lentes_. The existence of an English inflection proves that the word to +which it belongs is English, although its absence does not prove the +contrary. That the word _anemone_ is English (and consequently pronounced +_anem[)o]ne_) we know from the plural form, which is not _anemonae_, but +_anemones_. + +II. _The preference of one pronunciation over another on the score of +utility._--The word _ascetic_, for certain orthographical reasons, +notwithstanding its origin from the Greek word _aske['o]_, is called +_assetic_. From similar reasons there is a tendency to call the word +_sceptic_, _septic_. Theoretical propriety (and, be it observed, the +analogy of _ascetic_ has not been overlooked) is in {177} favour of the +word being sounded _skeptic_. The tendency of language, however, is the +other way. Now, the tendency of language and the theoretical propriety +being equal, there is an advantage (a point of utility) in saying +_skeptic_, which turns the scale. By sounding the _k_ we distinguish the +word _skeptic_ from _septic_. By this the language gains a point in +perspicuity, so that we can talk of the _anti-skeptic_ writings of Bishop +Warburton and of the _anti-septic_ properties of charcoal. + +III. _The tendencies of language_.--From p. 153, we see that the +combination _ew_ is an unstable combination, that it has a tendency to +become _yoo_, and that the _y_ in _yoo_ has a tendency to change a _d_ +preceding into _j_; in other words, we see the reason why, by many persons, +_dew_ is pronounced _jew_. + +It is generally an easier matter to say how a word will be sounded a +hundred years hence, than to determine its present pronunciation. +Theoretical propriety is in favour of _dew_, so also is the view in the way +of utility. Notwithstanding this, posterity will say _jew_, for the +tendencies of language are paramount to all other influences. + +We may now judge of the relative value of the three lines of criticism +exhibited above. Other things being equal, the language should have the +advantage of the doubt, and the utility of a given pronunciation should +prevail over its theoretical propriety. Where, however, the tendencies are +overwhelming, we can only choose whether, in doubtful words, we shall speak +like our ancestors, or like our posterity.[35] + + * * * * * + + +{178} + +CHAPTER IX. + +GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF ORTHOGRAPHY. + +s. 247. Orthoepy determines the correct pronunciation of 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_. The 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. + +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. 248. First, in respect to a full and perfect 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. + +An alphabet, however, may be sufficient, and yet imperfect. It may err on +the score of inconsistency. Let there be in a {179} 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 [phi], +&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_. {180} + +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. 249. _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 nowise 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:-- + +1. _Unsteadiness in the power of letters._--Of this there are two kinds. In +the first, there is one sound with two (or more) ways of expressing it. +Such is the sound of the letter _f_ in English. In words of Anglo-Saxon +origin it is spelt with a single simple sign, as in _fill_; whilst in Greek +words it is denoted by a combination, as in _Philip_. The reverse of this +takes place with the letter _g_; here a single sign has a double power; in +_gibbet_ it is sounded as _j_, and in _gibberish_ as _g_ in _got_. + +2. _The aim at secondary objects._--The natural aim of orthography, of +spelling, or of writing (for the three terms mean the same thing), is to +express the _sounds_ of a language. Syllables and words it takes as they +meet the ear, it translates them by appropriate signs, and so paints them, +as it were, to the eye. That this is the natural and primary object is +self-evident; but beyond this natural and primary object there is, with the +orthographical systems of most languages, a secondary one, _viz._ the +attempt to combine with the representation of the sound of a given word the +representation of its history and origin. + +The sound of the _c_, in _city_, is the sound that we naturally spell with +the letter _s_, and if the expression of this sound was the _only_ object +of our orthographists, the word would be spelt accordingly (_sity_). The +following facts, however, traverse {181} 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. + +3. _Obsoleteness._--It is very evident that modes of spelling which at one +time may have been correct, may, by a change of pronunciation, become +incorrect; so that orthography becomes obsolete whenever there takes place +a change of speech without a correspondent change of spelling. + +s. 250. _Difference between the change of a sound and the original false +expression of a sound._--The letter _u_ is a simple single sign. The sound +of _ow_, in _town_, is a diphthongal, or a double, sound. Now, in +Anglo-Saxon, the modern word _town_ is spelt _t['u]n_. In this case one of +two things must have taken place: either the word must have changed its +sound, or the Anglo-Saxons must have expressed it falsely and improperly. + +s. 251. 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. {182} + +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. 252. Previous to considering the sufficiency or insufficiency of the +English alphabet, it is necessary to enumerate the elementary articulate +sounds of the language. The enumeration of these is, strictly speaking, a +point, not of orthography, but of orthoepy. It is, however, so intimately +connected with the former that the present chapter seems its proper place. +The vowels belonging to the English language are the _twelve_ following:-- + + 1. That of _a_ in _father_. | 7. That of _e_ in _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_. + +For the relations of these see Chapter II. + +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_ -- _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_. + {183} + 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_. + +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_." + +The vowels being twelve, the diphthongs four, and the consonantal sounds +twenty-four, we have altogether as many as forty sounds, some being so +closely allied to each other as to be mere modifications, and others being +combinations rather than simple sounds; all, however, agreeing in requiring +to be expressed by letters or by combinations of letters, and to be +distinguished from each other. + +Now, although every sound specifically distinct should be expressed by a +distinct sign, it does not follow that mere modifications or varieties +(especially if they be within certain limits) should be so expressed. In +the Greek language sounds as like as the _o_ in _not_ and the _o_ in _note_ +are expressed by signs as unlike as [omicron] and [omega]; that is, by the +letters _omicron_ and _omega_ respectively; and so it is with [epsilon] and +[eta]. All that can be said in this case is, that it is the character of +the Greek alphabet to represent a difference which the English neglects. + +With respect to the diphthongs it is incorrect, uncommon, and inconvenient +to represent them by simple single signs, rather than by combinations. In +the English language the sounds {184} of _ou_, _ew_, and _oi_, are properly +spelt with two letters. Not so, however, of _i_ in _bite_. + +The compound sibilants may also be expressed not by single signs, but by +the combinations _tsh_ and _dzh_; although, for certain reasons, such a +mode of spelling is inconvenient. With these views we may appreciate, + +I. _The insufficiency of the English alphabet._ + +A. _In respect to the vowels._--Notwithstanding the fact that the sounds of +the _a_ in _father_, _fate_, and _fat_, and of the _o_ and the _aw_ in +_note_, _not_, and _bawl_, are modifications of _a_ and _o_ respectively, +we have still _six_ vowel sounds specifically distinct, for which (_y_ +being a consonant rather than a vowel) we have but _five_ signs. The _u_ in +_duck_, specifically distinct from the _u_ in _bull_, has no specifically +distinct sign to represent it. + +B. _In respect to the consonants._--The _th_ in _thin_, the _th_ in +_thine_, the _sh_ in _shine_, the _z_ in _azure_, and the _ng_ in _king_, +five sounds specifically distinct, and five sounds perfectly simple require +corresponding signs, which they have not. + +II. _Its inconsistency._--The _f_ in _fan_, and the _v_ in _van_ sounds in +a certain degree of relationship to _p_ and _b_, are expressed by signs as +unlike as _f_ is unlike _p_, and as _v_ is unlike b. The sound of the _th_ +in _thin_, the _th_ in _thine_, the _sh_ in _shine_, similarly related to +_t_, _d_, and _s_, are expressed by signs as like _t_, _d_, and _s_, +respectively, as _th_ and _sh_. + +The compound sibilant sound of _j_ in _jest_ is spelt with the single sign +_j_, whilst the compound sibilant sound in _chest_ is spelt with the +combination _ch_. + + III. _Erroneousness._--The sound of the _ee_ in _feet_ is considered the +long (independent) sound of the _e_ in _bed_; whereas it is the long +(independent) sound of the _i_ in _pit_. + +The _i_ in _bite_ is considered as the long (independent) sound of the _i_ +in _pit_; whereas it is a diphthongal sound. + +The _u_ in _duck_ is looked upon as a modification of the _u_ in _bull_; +whereas it is a specifically distinct sound. + +The _ou_ in _house_ and the _oi_ in _oil_ are looked upon as the compounds +of _o_ and _i_ and of _o_ and _u_ respectively; whereas the latter element +of them is not _i_ and _u_, but _y_ and _w_. + +The _th_ in _thin_ and the _th_ in _thine_ are dealt with as one {185} 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_. + +IV. _Redundancy._--As far as the representation of sounds is concerned the +letter _c_ is superfluous. In words like _citizen_ it may be replaced by +_s_; in words like _cat_ by _k_. In _ch_, as in _chest_, it has no proper +place. In _ch_, as in _mechanical_, it may be replaced by _k_. + +_Q_ is superfluous, _cw_ or _kw_ being its equivalent. + +_X_ also is superfluous, _ks_, _gz_, or _z_, being equivalent to it. + +The diphthongal forms _ae_ and _oe_, as in _Aeneas_ and _Croesus_, except +in the way of etymology, are superfluous and redundant. + +V. _Unsteadiness._--Here we have (amongst many other examples), 1. The +consonant _c_ with the double power of _s_ and _k_; 2. _g_ with its sound +in _gun_ and also with its sound in _gin_; 3. _x_ with its sounds in +_Alexander_, _apoplexy_, _Xenophon_. + +In the foregoing examples a single sign has a double power; in the words +_Philip_ and _filip_, &c., a single sound has a double sign. + +In respect to the degree wherein the English orthography is made +subservient to etymology, it is sufficient to repeat the statement that the +_c_, _ae_, and _oe_ are retained in the alphabet for etymological purposes +only. + +The defects noticed in the preceding sections are _absolute_ defects, and +would exist, as they do at present, were there no language in the world +except the English. This is not the case with those that are now about to +be noticed; for them, indeed, the word _defect_ is somewhat too strong a +term. They may more properly be termed inconveniences. + +Compared with the languages of the rest of the world the use of many +letters in the English alphabet is _singular_. The letter _i_ (when long or +independent) is, with the exception of England, generally sounded as _ee_. +With Englishmen it has a diphthongal power. The inconvenience of this is +the necessity that it imposes upon us, in studying foreign languages, of +{186} 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, of the English alphabet and +orthography, + +I). _Its convenience or inconvenience in respect to learning foreign +tongues._--The sound given to the _a_ in _fate_ is singular. Other nations +sound it as _a_ in _father_. + +The sound given to the _e_, long (or independent), is singular. Other +nations sound it either as _a_ in _fate_, or as _['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 {187} _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. + +II.) _The historical propriety of certain letters._--The use of _i_ with a +diphthongal power is not only singular and inconvenient, but also +historically incorrect. The Greek _iota_, from whence it originates, has +the sound of _i_ and _ee_, as in _pit_ and _feet_. + +The _y_, sounded as in _yet_, is historically incorrect. It grew out of the +Greek [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_. + +In remodelling alphabets the question of historical propriety should be +recognized. Other reasons for the use of a particular letter in a +particular sense being equal, the historical propriety should decide the +question. The above examples are illustrative, not exhaustive. + +s. 253. _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_ {188} 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 choose, 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 +('), _viz._ as a sign that the vowel over which it is placed is long +(independent), is common in many languages. But is this use of (') natural? +For a reason that the reader has anticipated, it is not natural, but +conventional. It is used elsewhere not as the sign of _quantity_, but as +the sign of _accent_; consequently, being placed over a letter, and being +interpreted according to its natural meaning, it gives the idea, not that +the syllable is long, but that it is emphatic or accented. Its use as a +sign of quantity is an orthographical expedient, or a conventional mode of +spelling. + +The English language abounds in orthographical expedients; the mode of +expressing the quantity of the vowels being particularly numerous. To begin +with these: + +The reduplication of a vowel where there is but one syllable (as in _feet_, +_cool_), is an orthographical expedient. It merely means that the syllable +is long (or independent). + +The juxta-position of two different vowels, where there is but one syllable +(as in _plain_, _moan_), is an orthographical expedient. It generally means +the same as the reduplication of a vowel, _i.e._, that the syllable is long +(independent). + +The addition of the _e_ mute, as in _plane_, _whale_ (whatever may have +been its origin), is, at present, but an orthographical expedient. It +denotes the lengthening of the syllable. + +The reduplication of the consonant after a vowel, as in _spotted_, +_torrent_, is in most cases but an orthographical expedient. It merely +denotes that the preceding vowel is short (dependent). {189} + +The use of _ph_ for _f_ in _Philip_, is an orthographical expedient, +founded upon etymological reasons. + +The use of _th_ for the simple sound of the first consonant in _thin_ and +_thine_, is an orthographical expedient. The combination must be dealt with +as a single letter. + +_X_, however, and _q_ are not orthographical expedients. They are +orthographical compendiums. + +The above instances have been adduced as illustrations only. Further +details will be found hereafter. For many of them we can give a reason (for +instance, for the reduplication of a consonant to express the shortness of +the preceding vowel), and of many of them we can give an historical account +(see Chapter X.). + +s. 254. The mischief of orthographical expedients is this:--When a sign, or +letter, is used in a _conventional_, it precludes us from using it (at +least without further explanation) in its _natural_ sense: _e.g._, the +double _o_ in _mood_ constitutes but one syllable. If in a foreign language +we had, immediately succeeding each other, first the syllable _mo_, and +next the syllable _od_, we should have to spell it _mo-od_, or _moeod_ or +_mo-[o-hook]d_, &c. Again, it is only by our knowledge of the language that +the _th_ in _nuthook_, is not pronounced like the _th_ in _burthen_. In the +languages of India the true sound of _t_ + _h_ is common. This, however, we +cannot spell naturally because the combination _th_ conveys to us another +notion. Hence such combinations as _thh_, or _t`_, &c., in writing Hindoo +words. + +A second mischief of orthographical conventionalities, is the wrong notions +that they engender, the eye misleading the ear. That _th_ is really _t_ + +_h_, no one would have believed had it not been for the spelling. + +s. 255. The present section is the partial application of the preceding +observations. It is a running commentary upon the orthographical part of +Dr. Johnson's Grammar. Presuming a knowledge of the detail of the English +orthography, it attempts an explanation of some of its leading characters. +Many of these it possesses in common with other tongues. Several are +peculiar to itself. {190} + +"_A_, sounded as _aw_, or as a modification of _o_."--_A_, as in _father_, +and _o_, as in _note_ (as may be seen in p. 150), form the extremities of +the vowel system. Notwithstanding this, the two sounds often interchange. +The orthographical systems of most languages bear witness to this. In +French the _au_ in _autel_ has the sound of _o_; in Danish _aa_=_o_ +(_baade_ being pronounced _bohde_); in Swedish _[oa]_ has the same power. +In Old English the forms _hond_, _strond_, &c., occur, instead of _hand_, +strand, &c. In Anglo-Saxon, br['a]d, st['a]n, &c., correspond to the +English forms _broad_, _stone_. I am not able to say whether _a_ changes +oftenest to _o_, or _o_ to a. The form _hond_ is older than the form +_hand_. In the word _salt_, however, the _a_ was pronounced as the _a_ in +_fat_ before it was pronounced (as at present) like the _o_ in _not_. If +this were not the case it would never have been spelt with an a. In the +words _launch_ and _haunch_, by some called _lanch_, _hanch_, and by others +_lawnch_, _hawnch_, we find a present tendency to interchange these sounds. + +The change from _a_ to _o_ takes place most especially before the liquid +_l_, _wall_, _call_, _fall_. When the liquid _l_ is followed by another +consonant, it (_viz._ _l_) is generally sunk in pronunciation, _falcon_, +_salmon_, &c., pronounced _faucon_, _sammon_, or _saumon_. The reason of +this lies in the following fact, _viz._, _that syllables wherein there are, +at the same time, two final consonants and a long vowel, have a tendency to +become shortened by one of two processes, viz., either by ejecting one of +the consonants, or by shortening the vowel_. That the _l_ in _falcon_ is +affected not by the change of _a_ to _o_, but by the change of a short +vowel to a long, or of a slender one to a broad one, is shown in the +tendency which the common people have to say _hode_ for _hold_, as well as +by the Scotch form _gowd_ for _gold_. This fact bears upon the difficult +problem in the Greek (and in other languages), _viz._, whether the +_lengthening_ of the vowel in words like _[Greek: odous]_ (compared with +_[Greek: odontos]_), is the cause or the effect of the rejection of the +consonant. + +"_E_ is long, as in _scene_; or short, as in _cellar_."'--_Johnson._ It has +been stated before that the (so-called) long sound of _e_ is non-existent, +and the _e_ in _scene_, is the (so-called) long sound of the _i_ in _pit_. +{191} + +For the power of _e_ in _since_ and _once_, see the remarks on _s_. + +For the power of _e_ in _hedge_ and _oblige_, see the remarks on _g_. + +The power of _e_ mute in words like _cane_, _bane_, _tune_, _robe_, _pope_, +_fire_, _cure_, _tube_, has already been noticed. It serves to denote the +length of the preceding vowel. For this purpose it is retained; but it was +not for this purpose that it was invented. Originally it expressed a sound, +and it is only by a change of language that it has come, as it were by +accident, to be an orthographical expedient. + +Let a word consist of two syllables. Let the latter end in a vowel. Let +there be between the vowel of the first and the vowel of the second +syllable, one consonant and no more, _e. g._, _namae_. Let the consonant +belong to the root of the word; and let the first syllable of the word be +the essential and the radical part of it. Let this same syllable (as the +essential and radical part of it) have an accent. The chances are that, +under such circumstances, the vowel of the first syllable will be long +(independent), just as the chances are that a vowel followed by two +consonants will be short. Let a change in language affect the _final_ +vowel, so that a word which was originally pronounced _nama_, should +become, first, _name_, and afterwards _n[=a]m_, _naim_, or _naem_; the +vowel being sounded as the _a_ in _fate_. Let the final _e_, although lost +in pronunciation, be retained in the spelling. The chances are that, the +above conditions being given, such an _e_ (final and mute) shall, whenever +it occurs, occur at the end of a long syllable. The next process is for a +succeeding generation to mistake a coincidence for a sign, and to imagine +that an _e_ mute expresses the length of syllable. + +I consider this to be the key to the use of the _e_ mute in all words where +it is preceded by one consonant only. + +From the circumstance that the French and the English are the only nations +wherein the _e_ mute is part and parcel of the orthography, it has been +hastily imagined that the employment of it is to be attributed to the +Norman Conquest. The truth, however, is, that we find it equally in words +of Saxon and of Norman origin. + +The fact that, in certain words, an _e_ mute is preceded by {192} two +consonants and by a short vowel, does not militate against the view given +above. + +"_I_ has a sound, long, as in _fine_, and short, as in _fin_. That is +eminently observable in _i_, which may be likewise remarked in other +letters, that the short sound is not the long sound contracted, but a sound +wholly different."--_Johnson._ This extract has been made in order to add +the authority of Johnson to the statement so often repeated already; +_viz._, that the _i_ in _bite_ is not the long sound of the _i_ in _bit_. + +For the sound of _u_ in _guest_, _prorogue_, _guard_, see the remarks on +_g_. + +As a vowel, _y_ is wholly superfluous. It is a current remark that more +words end in _y_ (_fortify_, _pretty_) than in any other letter. This is +true only in respect to their spelling. As a matter of _speech_, the _y_ +final has always the sound either of the _ee_ in _feet_, or of the _i_ in +_bite_. Such is the case with the words _fortify_ and _pretty_, quoted +above. For some reason or other, the vowel _e_ is never, in English, +written at the end of words, unless when it is mute; whilst _i_ is never +written at all. Instead of _cri_, we write _cry_, &c. This is a peculiarity +of our orthography, for which I have no satisfactory reason. It _may_ be, +that with words ending in _e_, _y_ is written for the sake of showing that +the vowel is not mute, but sounded. Again, the adjectives ending in _y_ as +_any_, and the adverbs in _ly_, as _manly_, in the older stages of our +language ended, not in _y_, but in _ig_ (_manlig_, _aenig_); so that the +present _y_, in such words, may be less the equivalent of _i_ than the +compendium of _ig_. I venture this indication with no particular +confidence. + +The _b_ in _debtor_, _subtile_, _doubt_, agrees with the _b_ in _lamb_, +_limb_, _dumb_, _thumb_, _womb_, in being mute. It differs, however, in +another respect. The words _debtor_, _subtle_, _doubt_, are of classical, +the words _lamb_, _limb_, _dumb_, &c., are of Saxon, origin. In _debtor_, +&c., the _b_ was, undoubtedly, at one time, pronounced, since it belonged +to a different syllable; _debitor_, _subtilis_, _dubito_, being the +original forms. I am far from being certain that with the other words, +_lamb_, &c., this was the case. With them the _b_ belonged (if it belonged +to the word at all) to the same syllable as the _m_. I think, {193} +however, that instead of this being the case, the _b_, in _speech_, never +made a part of the word at all; that it belongs now, and that it always +belonged, to the _written_ language only; and that it was inserted in the +spelling upon what may be called the principle of imitation. For a further +illustration of this, see the remarks on the word _could_. + +"_Ch_ has a sound which is analysed into _tsh_, as _church_, _chin_, +_crutch_. _C_ might be omitted in the language without loss, since one of +its sounds might be supplied by _s_, and the other by _k_, but that it +preserves to the eye the etymology of words, as _face_ from _facies_, +_captive_ from _captivus_"--_Johnson._ + +Before _a_, _o_, _u_ (that is, before a full vowel), _c_ is sounded as _k_; +before _e_, _i_, and _y_ (that is, before a small vowel), it has the power +of _s_. This change of sound according to the nature of the vowel +following, is so far from being the peculiarity of the English, that it is +common in all languages; except that sometimes _c_, instead of becoming +_s_, becomes _ts_, _tsh_, _ksh_, in other words, some other sibilant; _but +always a sibilant_. A reference to p. 153 will explain this change. At a +certain time, _k_ (written _c_, as is the case in Latin) becomes changed by +the vowel following into _ksh_, and from thence into _s_, _ts_, or _tsh_. +That the syllables _cit_, _cyt_, _cet_, were at one time pronounced _kit_, +_kyt_, _ket_, we believe: 1. from the circumstance that if it were not so, +they would have been spelt with an _s_; 2. from the comparison of the Greek +and Latin languages, where the words _cete_, _circus_, _cystis_, Latin, are +[Greek: kete, kirkos], [Greek: kustis], Greek. + +In the words _mechanical_, _choler_, &c., derived from the Greek, it must +not be imagined that the _c_ represents the Greek _kappa_ or [kappa]. The +combination _c_ + _h_ is to be dealt with as a single letter. Thus it was +that the Romans, who had in their language neither the sound of [chi], nor +the sign [kappa], rendered the Greek _chi_ ([chi]), just as by _th_ they +rendered [theta], and by _ph_, [phi]. + +The faulty representation of the Greek [chi] has given rise to a faulty +representation of the Greek [kappa], as in _ascetic_, from [Greek: +asketikos]. + +"_C_, according to the English orthography, never ends a {194} word; +therefore we write _stick_, _block_, which were originally _sticke_, +_blocke_. In such words _c_ is now mute."--_Johnson._ Just as there was a +prejudice against _i_ or _e_ ending a word there seems to have been one in +the case of c. In the word _Frederick_ there are three modes of spelling: +1. Frederic; 2. Frederik; 3. Frederick. Of these three it is the last only +that seems, to an Englishman, natural. The form Frederic seems +exceptionable, because the last letter is _c_, whilst Frederik is objected +to because _k_ comes in immediate contact with the short vowel. + +Now the reason against _c_ ending a word seems this. From what has been +remarked above, _c_ seems, in and of itself, to have no power at all. +Whether it shall be sounded as _k_ or as _s_ seems undetermined, except by +the nature of the vowel following. If the vowel following be small, +_c_=_s_, if full, _c_=_k_. But _c_ followed by nothing is equivocal and +ambiguous. Now _c_ final is _c_ followed by nothing; and therefore _c_ +equivocal, ambiguous, indefinite, undetermined. This is the reason why _c_ +is never final. Let there be such words as _sticke_ and _blocke_. Let the +_k_ be taken away. The words remain _stice_, _bloce_. The _k_ being taken +away, there is a danger of calling them _stise_, _blose_. + +A verbal exception being taken, the statement of Dr. Johnson, that in words +like _stick_ and _block_ the _c_ is mute, is objectionable. The mute letter +is not so much the _c_ as the _k_. + +"_G_ at the end of a word is always hard, as _ring_, _sing_."--_Johnson._ A +verbal exception may be taken here. _Ng_, is not a combination of the +sounds of _n_+_g_, but the representation of a simple single sound; so +that, as in the case of _th_ and _sh_, the two letters must be dealt with +as a single one. + +"_G_ before _n_ is mute, as _gnash_, _sign_, _foreign_."--_Johnson._ The +three words quoted above are not in the same predicament. In words like +_gnash_ the _g_ has been silently dropped on the score of euphony (see +remarks on _k_); in _sign_ and _foreign_ the _g_ has not been dropped, but +changed. It has taken the allied sound of the semivowel _y_, and so, with +the preceding vowel, constitutes a diphthong. {195} + +Before _a_, _o_, _u_ (full vowels), _g_ has the sound, as in _gay_, _go_, +_gun_: before _e_, _i_, _y_, that of _gem_, _giant_. + +At the end of a word (that is, followed by nothing at all), or followed by +a consonant, it has the same sound that it has before _a_, _o_, +_u_--_agog_, _grand_. This shows that such is its natural sound. In _hedge_ +and _oblige_ the _e_ mute serves to show that the _g_ is to be pronounced +as _j_. + +Let there be the word _r[)o]g_. Let the vowel be lengthened. Let this +lengthening be expressed by the addition of _e_ mute, _roge_. There is now +a risk of the word being called _roje_. This is avoided by inserting _u_, +as in _prorogue_. Why, however, is it that the _u_ runs no chance of being +pronounced, and the word of being sounded _prorogw['e]_? The reason for +this lies in three facts. 1. The affinities between the sounds of _ga_ and +_ka_. 2. The fact that _qu_ is merely _kw_. 3. The fact that in _qu_, +followed by another vowel, as in _quoit_ (pronounced _koyt_), _antique_, +&c., the _u_ is altogether omitted in pronunciation. In other words, the +analogy of _qu_ is extended to _gu_. + +For the varied sounds of _gh_ in _plough_, _tough_, _enough_ (_enow_), +_through_, we must remember that the original sound of _gh_ was a hard +guttural, as is at present the case in Scotland, and between _g_, _h_, _f_, +_v_, _w_, there are frequent interchanges. + +"_H_ is a note of aspiration."--It is under the notion that _th_, _ph_, +_sh_, as in _thin_, _thine_, _Philip_, _shine_, are aspirated sounds, that +_h_ is admitted in the spelling. As has been repeatedly stated, _th_, _ph_, +_sh_ are to be treated as single signs or letters. + +"_J_, consonant, sounds uniformly like the soft _g_ (_i.e._, as in _gem_), +and is, therefore, a letter useless, except in etymology, as _ejaculation_, +_jester_, _jocund_, _juice_."--_Johnson._ It may be added that it never +occurs in words of Saxon origin, and that in the single word _Allelujah_ it +has the sound of _y_, as in the German. + +_K_ never comes before _a_, _o_, _u_, or before a consonant. It is used +before _e_, _i_, _y_, where _c_ would, according to the English analogy, be +liable to be sounded as _s_; as in _kept_, _king_, _skirt_. These words, if +written _cept_, _cing_, _scirt_, would run the risk of being sounded +_sept_, _sing_, _sirt_. Broadly speaking, _k_ is never {196} used except +where _c_ would be inconvenient. The reason of this lies in the fact of +there being no such letter as _k_ in the Latin language. Hence arose in the +eyes of the etymologist the propriety of retaining, in all words derived +from the Latin (_crown_, _concave_, _concupiscence_, &c.), the letter _c_, +to the exclusion of _k_. Besides this, the Anglo-Saxon alphabet, being +taken from the Roman, excluded _k_, so that _c_ was written even before the +small vowels, _a_, _e_, _i_, _y_; as _cyning_, or _cining_, _a king_. _C_ +then supplants _k_ upon etymological grounds only. In the languages derived +from the Latin this dislike to the use of _k_ leads to several +orthographical inconveniences. As the tendency of _c_, before _e_, _i_, +_y_, to be sounded as _s_ (or as a sound allied to _s_), is the same in +those languages as in others; and as in those languages, as in others, +there frequently occur such sounds as _kit_, _ket_, _kin_, &c., a +difficulty arises as to the spelling. If spelt _cit_, _cet_, &c., there is +the risk of their being sounded _sit_, _set_. To remedy this, an _h_ is +interposed--_chit_, _chet_, &c. This, however, only substitutes one +difficulty for another, since _ch_ is, in all probability, already used +with a different sound, _e.g._, that of _sh_, as in French, or that of _k_ +guttural, as in German. The Spanish orthography is thus hampered. Unwilling +to spell the word _chimera_ (pronounced _kimera_) with a _k_; unable to +spell it with either _c_ or _ch_, it writes the word _quimaera_. This +distaste for _k_ is an orthographical prejudice. Even in the way of +etymology it is but partially advantageous, since in the other Gothic +languages, where the alphabet is less rigidly Latin, the words that in +English are spelt with a _c_, are there written with _k_,--_kam_, German; +_komme_, Danish; _skrapa_, Swedish;=_came_, _come_, _scrape_. + +The use of _k_ final, as in _stick_, &c., has been noticed in p. 194. + +"_Skeptic_, for so it should be written, not _sceptic_."--_Johnson._ Quoted +for the sake of adding authority to the statement made in p. 193, _viz._, +that the Greek _kappa_ is to be represented not by _c_, but by _k_. + +"_K_ is never doubled, but _c_ is used before it to shorten the vowel by a +double consonant, as _c[)o]ckle_, _p[)i]ckle_."--_Johnson._ {197} This is +referable to the statement that _k_ is never used where _c_ is admissible. + +"_K_ is used before _n_, _knell_, _knot_, but totally loses its +sound."--_Johnson._ This, however, is not the ease in the allied languages; +in German and Danish, in words like _knecht_, _knive_, the _k_ is sounded. +This teaches us that such was once the case in English. Hence we learn that +in the words _knife_, _knight_ (and also in _gnaw_, _gnash_), we have an +antiquated or obsolete orthography. + +For the ejection of the sound of _l_ in _calf_, _salmon_, _falcon_, &c. see +under a. For the _l_ in _could_, see that word. + +"_N_ is sometimes mute after _m_, as _damn_, _condemn_, +_hymn_."--_Johnson._ In all these words the _n_ originally belonged to a +succeeding syllable, _dam-no_, _condem-no_, _hym-nus_. + +_Q_, accurately speaking, is neither a letter, nor an abbreviation. It is +always followed by _u_, as _queen_, _quilt_, and the two letters _qu_ must +be looked upon as a single sign, equivalent to (but scarcely an +abbreviation) of _kw_. _Q_ is not=_k_ alone. The combination _qu_, is never +sounded _koo_. Neither is _kw_. If it were so, there would be in the word +_queen_ (currently speaking) _three_ sounds of _u_, _viz._, two belonging +to _q_ (=_kw_), and one belonging to _u_ itself. _W_ being considered as=2 +_u_: _q_=_k_ + 1/2 _w_. This view of _q_ bears upon the theory of words +like _prorogue_, &c. + +The reader is referred to p. 152. There he is told that, when a word ends +in a flat consonant, _b_, _v_, _d_, _g_, the plural termination is not the +sound of _s_, but that of _z_ (_stagz_, _dogz_); although _s_ be the letter +_written_. Such also is the case with words ending in the vowels or the +liquids (_peaz_, _beanz_, _hillz_, not _peace_, _beance_, _hillce_). This +fact influences our orthography. The majority of words ending in _s_ are +found to be plural numbers, or else (what is the same thing in respect to +form) either genitive cases, or verbs of the third person singular; whilst +in the majority of these the _s_ is sounded as _z_. Hence, the inference +from analogy that _s_ single, at the end of words, is sounded as _z_. Now +this fact hampers the orthography of those words wherein _s_ final retains +its natural sound, as _since_, _once_, _mass_, _mace_; for let these be +{198} written _sins_, _ons_, _mas_, the chances are that they will be +pronounced _sinz_, _onz_, _maz_. To remedy this, the _s_ may be doubled, as +in _mass_. This, however, can be done in a few cases only. It cannot be +done conveniently where the vowel is long, the effect of a double consonant +being to denote that the preceding vowel is short. Neither can it be done +conveniently after a consonant, such combinations as _sinss_, &c., being +unsightly. This throws the grammarian upon the use of _c_, which, as stated +above, has, in certain situations, the power of _s_. To write, however, +simply _sinc_, or _onc_, would induce the risk of the words being sounded +_sink_, _onk_. To obviate this, _e_ is added, which has the double effect +of not requiring to be sounded (being mute), and of showing that the _c_ +has the sound of _s_ (being small). + +"It is the peculiar quality of _s_ that it may be sounded before all +consonants, except _x_ and _z_, in which _s_ is comprised, _x_ being only +_ks_, and _z_ only a hard [flat] or gross _s_. This _s_ is therefore +termed by grammarians _suae potestatis litera_, the reason of which the +learned Dr. Clarke erroneously supposed to be, that in some words it might +be doubled at pleasure."--_Johnson._ A reference to the current Greek +Grammars will indicate another reason for [sigma] being called _suae +potestatis litera_. It will there be seen that, whilst [pi], [beta], +[phi]--[kappa], [gamma], [chi]--[tau], [delta], [theta]--are grouped +together, as _tenues_, _mediae_, and _aspiratae_, and as _inter se +cognatae_, [sigma] stands by itself; [zeta] its media (flat sound) being +treated as a double letter, and _sh_, its so-called aspirate, being +non-existent in the Greek language. + +The sound of _ti_ before a vowel, as in _salvation_, is explained in p. +153. + +"_Th_ has two sounds; the one soft [flat], as _thus_, _whether_; the other +hard [sharp], as _thing_, _think_. The sound is soft [flat] in all words +between two vowels, as _father_, _whether_; and between _r_ and a vowel, as +_burthen_."--_Johnson._ The reason of the latter statement lies in the fact +of both the vowels and _r_ being _flat_ (see p. 152), and so exerting a +flattening influence upon the sounds in contact with them. + +In the substantives _breath_ and _cloth_, the _th_ is sharp (_i.e._, as +_th_ in _thin_); in the verbs _breathe_ and _clothe_, the _th_ is flat +(_i.e._, {199} as _th_ in _thine_).--A great number of substantives may be +made verbs by changing the sound of their final consonant. However, with +the words _breathe_ and _clothe_, a second change has taken place, _viz._, +the vowel has been lengthened. Now of these two changes, _viz._, the +lengthening of the vowel, and the flattening of the consonant, which is the +one represented by the _e_ mute, in _clothe_ and _breathe_, as compared +with _cloth_ and _breath_? I imagine the former. Hence an exception is +taken to the following statement of Dr. Johnson:--"When it (_th_) is +softened [flattened] at the end of a word, an _e_ silent must be added, as +_breath_, _breathe_, _cloth_, _clothe_." + +The sounds of the _s_ in _sure_, of the _t_ in _picture_ (when pronounced +_pictshure_), and of the _z_ in _azure_ and _glazier_, are explained in p. +153. + +The present chapter is intended not to exhaust the list, but to illustrate +the character of those orthographical expedients which insufficient +alphabets, changes in language, and the influences of etymology engender +both in the English and in other tongues. + + * * * * * + + +{200} + +CHAPTER X. + +HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE ENGLISH ALPHABET. + +s. 256. 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 the various 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, Hebrew, or Semitic +alphabet. This is easily accounted for when we call to mind,--1. The fact +that the Greek, the Latin, and the Arabian alphabets, are all founded upon +this; and, 2. The great influence of the nations speaking those three +languages. The present sketch, however, is given only for the sake of +accounting for defects. + +s. 257. _Phoenician, Hebrew, or Semitic Period._--At a certain period the +alphabet of Palestine, Phoenicia, and the neighbouring languages of the +Semitic tribes, consisted of twenty-two separate and distinct letters. For +these see the Hebrew Grammars and the Phoenicia of Gesenius. + +The chances are, that, let a language possess as few elementary articulate +sounds as possible, an alphabet of only twenty-two letters will be +insufficient. Now, in the particular case of the languages in point, the +number of elementary sounds, as we infer from the present Arabic, was above +the average. {201} It may safely be asserted, that the original Semitic +alphabet was _insufficient_ for even the Semitic languages. + +It was, moreover, _inconsistent_: since sounds as like as those of _teth_ +and _tau_ (mere variations of each other) were expressed by signs as unlike +as [Hebrew: T`] and [Hebrew: T]; whilst sounds as unlike as those of _beth_ +with a point, and _beth_ without a point (_b_ and _v_), were expressed (if +expressed at all) by signs as like as [Hebrew: B] and [Hebrew: B]. + +In this state it was imported into Greece. Now, as it rarely happens that +any two languages have precisely the same elementary articulate sounds, so +it rarely happens that an alphabet can be transplanted from one tongue to +another, and be found, at once, to coincide. + +The Greeks had, in all probability, sounds which were wanting in Palestine +and Phoenicia. In Palestine and Phoenicia it is certain that there were +sounds wanting in Greece. + +Of the twenty-two Phoenician letters the Greeks took but twenty-one. The +eighteenth letter, _tsadi_, [Hebrew: TS], was never imported into Europe. + +s. 258. _Greek Period._--Compared with the Semitic, the _Old_ Greek +alphabet ran thus:-- + + _Hebrew._ _Greek._ | _Hebrew._ _Greek._ + | + 1. [Alef] [Alpha]. | 13. [Mem] [Mu]. + 2. [Bet] [Beta]. | 14. [Nun] [Nu]. + 3. [Gimel] [Gamma]. | 15. [Samekh] [Sigma]? + 4. [Dalet] [Delta]. | 16. [Ayin] [Omicron]. + 5. [He] [Epsilon]. | 17. [Pe] [Pi]. + 6. [Vav] [Digamma]. | 18. [Tsadi] -- + 7. [Zayin] [Zeta]. | A letter called + 8. [Khet] [Eta]. | 19. [Kuf] koppa, afterwards + 9. [Tet] [Theta]. | ejected. + 10. [Yod] [Iota]. | 20. [Resh] [Rho]. + 11. [Kaf] [Kappa]. | 21. [Shin] [San] afterwards [Sigma]? + 12. [Lamed] [Lambda]. | 22. [Tav] [Tau]. + +Such the order and form of the Greek and Hebrew letters. Here it may be +remarked, that, of each alphabet, it is only the modern forms that are +compared; the likeness in the _shape_ of the letters may be seen by +comparing them in their {202} older stages. Of these the exhibition, in a +work like the present, is inconvenient. They may, however, be studied in +the work already referred to in the _Phoenicia_ of Gesenius. The _names_ of +the letters are as follows:-- + + _Hebrew._ _Greek._ | _Hebrew._ _Greek._ + | + 1. Aleph Alpha. | 12. Lamed Lambda. + 2. Beth Baeta. | 13. Mem Mu. + 3. Gimel Gamma. | 14. Nun Nu. + 4. Daleth Delta. | 15. Samech Sigma? + 5. He E, _psilon_ | 16. Ayn O. + 6. Vaw _Digamma_. | 17. Pi Pi. + 7. Zayn Zaeta. | 18. Tsadi ---- + 8. Heth Haeta. | 19. Kof Koppa, _Archaic_. + 9. Teth Thaeta. | 20. Resh Rho. + 10. Yod I[^o]ta. | 21. Sin San, _Doric_. + 11. Kaph Kappa. | 22. Tau Tau. + +s. 259. The Asiatic alphabet of Phoenicia and Palestine is now adapted to +the European language of Greece. The first change took place in the manner +of writing. The Orientals wrote from right to left; the Greeks from left to +right. Besides this, the following principles, applicable whenever the +alphabet of one language is transferred to another, were recognised:-- + +1. Letters for which there was no use were left behind. This was the case, +as seen above, with the eighteenth letter, _tsadi_. + +2. Letters expressive of sounds for which there was no precise equivalent +in Greek, were used with other powers. This was the case with letters 5, 8, +16, and probably with some others. + +3. Letters of which the original sound, in the course of time, became +changed, were allowed, as it were, to drop out of the alphabet. This was +the case with 6 and 19. + +4. For such simple single elementary articulate sounds as there was no sign +or letter representant, new signs, or letters, were invented. This +principle gave to the Greek alphabet the new signs [phi], [chi], [upsilon], +[omega]. + +5. The new signs were not mere modifications of the older {203} ones (as +was the case with [Hebrew: P], [Hebrew: P], [Hebrew: B], [Hebrew: B], &c. +in Hebrew), but new, distinct, and independent letters. + +In all this there was an improvement. The faults of the newer Greek +alphabet consisted in the admission of the compendium [psi]=_ps_, and the +retention of the fifteenth letter (_samech_, _xi_), with the power of _ks_, +it being also a compendium. + +s. 260. _The Italian or old Latin period._--That it was either from the +original Phoenician, or from the _old_ Greek, that the Italian alphabets +were imported, we learn from the existence in them of the letters _f_ and +_q_, corresponding respectively to the sixth and nineteenth letters; these +having, in the second stage of the Greek alphabet, been ejected. + +s. 261. The first alphabet imported into Italy was the Etruscan. In this +the [beta], [delta], and [omicron] were ejected, their sounds (as it is +stated) not being found in the Etruscan language. Be it observed, that the +sounds both of [beta] and [delta] are _flat_. Just as in the Devonshire +dialect the flat sounds (_z_, _v_, &c.) have the preponderance, so, in the +Etruscan, does there seem to have been a preponderating quantity of the +sharp sounds. This prepares us for a change, the effects whereof exist in +almost all the alphabets of Europe. In Greek and Hebrew the third letter +(_gimel_, _gamma_) had the power of the flat mute _g_, as in _gun_. In the +Etruscan it had the power of _k_. In this use of the third letter the +Romans followed the Etruscans: but, as they had also in their language the +sound of _g_ (as in _gun_), they used, up to the Second Punic War, the +third letter (_viz._ _c_), to denote both sounds. In the Duillian column we +have MACESTRATOS, CARTHACINIENSES.[36] Afterwards, however, the separate +sign (or letter) _g_ was invented, being originally a mere modification of +c. The _place_ of _g_ in the alphabet is involved in the history of _z_. + +s. 262. The Roman alphabet had a double origin. For the first two centuries +after the foundation of the city the alphabet used was the Etruscan, +derived directly from the Greek, and from the _old_ Greek. This accounts +for the presence of _f_ and _q_. + +{204} + +Afterwards, however, the Romans modified their alphabet by the alphabet of +the Italian Greeks; these Italian Greeks using the late Greek alphabet. +This accounts for the presence of _v_, originating in the Greek _ypsilon_. + +In accommodating the Greek alphabet to their own language, the Latins +recognised the following principles:-- + +I. The ejection of such letters as were not wanted. Thus it was that the +seventh letter (_zayn_, _zaeta_) was thrown out of the alphabet, and the +new letter, _g_, put in its place. Subsequently, _z_ was restored for the +sake of spelling Greek words, but was placed at the end of the alphabet. +Thus also it was, that _thaeta_, _kappa_ (_c_ being equivalent to _k_), and +the fifteenth letter, were ejected, while [psi] and [chi] were never +admitted. In after-times the fifteenth letter (now _xi_) was restored, for +the same reason that _z_ was restored, and, like _z_, was placed at the end +of the alphabet. + +II. The use of the imported letters with a new power. Hence the sixth +letter took the sound, not of _v_ or _w_, but of _f_; and the eighth of +_h_. + +Beyond this the Romans made but slight alterations. In ejecting _kappa_, +_thaeta_ and _chi_, they did mischief. The same in changing the power of c. +The representation of [phi] by _ph_, and of [theta] by _th_ was highly +erroneous. The retention of _x_ and _q_ was unnecessary. _V_ and _j_, two +letters whereby the alphabet was really enriched, were mere modifications +of _u_ and _i_ respectively. _Y_ also seems a modification of _v_. + +Neither the Latin, Greek, nor Hebrew orthographies were much warped to +etymological purposes. + +It should be observed, that in the Latin the letters have no longer any +names (like _beth_, _baeta_), except such as are derived from their powers +(_be_, _ce_). + +It may now be seen that with a language containing such sounds as the _th_ +in _thin_ and _thine_, and the _ch_ in the German _auch_, it is to their +advantage to derive their alphabet from the Greek; whilst, with a language +containing such sounds as _h_ and _v_, it is to their advantage to derive +it from the Latin. + +It may also be seen, that, without due alterations and {205} additions, the +alphabet of one country will not serve as the alphabet of another. + +s. 263. _The Moeso-Gothic alphabet._--In the third century the classical +alphabets were applied to a Gothic language. I use the word alphabets +because the Moeso-Gothic letters borrowed from both the Latin and the +Greek. Their form and order may be seen in Hickes' Thesaurus and in Lye's +Grammar. With the Greek they agree in the following particulars. + +1. In the sound of the third letter being not that of [kappa] (_c_), but of +the _g_ in _gun_. + +2. In retaining _kappa_ and _chi_. + +3. In expressing the simple single sound of _th_ by a simple single sign. +This sign, however, has neither the shape nor alphabetical position of the +Greek _thaeta_. + +With the Latin they agree, 1. in possessing letters equivalent to _f_, _g_, +_h_, _q_, _y_. + +2. In placing _z_ at the end of the alphabet. + +The Moeso-Gothic alphabet seems to have been formed on eclectic principles, +and on principles sufficiently bold. Neither was its application traversed +by etymological views. I cannot trace its influence, except, perhaps, in +the case of the Anglo-Saxon letters _th_ and _[wynn]_, upon any other +alphabet; nor does it seem to have been acted upon by any earlier Gothic +alphabet. + +s. 264. _The Anglo-Saxon alphabet._--What sort of an alphabet the Gothic +languages possess we know: what sort of alphabet they require, we can +determine. For the following sounds (amongst others) current in the Gothic, +either one or both of the classical languages are deficient in +corresponding signs. + +1. The _th_ in _thin_.--A sign in Greek ([theta]), but none in Latin. + +2. The _th_ in _thine_.--A sign neither in Greek nor Latin. + +3. The _ch_ in the German _auch_.--A sign in Greek ([chi]), but none in +Latin. + +4. The flat sound of the same, or the probable sound of the _h_ in _thurh_, +_leoht_, _&c_., Anglo-Saxon.--A sign neither in Greek nor Latin. {206} + +5. The _sh_ in _shine_.--A sign neither in Greek nor Latin. + +6. The _z_ in _azure_.--A sign neither in Greek nor Latin. + +7. The _ch_ in _chest_.--A sign neither in Greek nor Latin, unless we +suppose that at the time when the Anglo-Saxon alphabet was formed, the +Latin _c_ in words like _civitas_ had the power, which it has in the +present Italian, of _ch_. + +8. The _j_ in _jest_.--A sign neither in Greek nor Latin, unless we admit +the same supposition in respect to _g_, that has been indicated in respect +to c. + +9. The sound of the _kj_; in the Norwegian _kjenner_; _viz._, that +(thereabouts) of _ksh_.--A sign neither in Latin nor Greek. + +10. The English sound of _w_.--A sign neither in Latin nor Greek. + +11. The sound of the German _ue_, Danish _y_.--No sign in Latin; probably +one in Greek, _viz._, [upsilon]. + +12. Signs for distinguishing the long and short vowels, as [epsilon] and +[eta], [omicron] and [omega].--Wanting in Latin, but existing in Greek. + +In all these points the classical alphabets (one or both) were deficient. +To make up for their insufficiency one of two things was necessary, either +to coin new letters, or to use conventional combinations of the old. + +In the Anglo-Saxon alphabet (derived from the Latin) we have the following +features:-- + +1. _C_ used to the exclusion of _k_. + +2. The absence of the letter _j_, either with the power of _y_, as in +German, of _zh_, as in French, or of _dzh_, as in English. + +3. The absence of _q_; a useful omission, _cw_ serving instead. + +4. The absence of _v_; _u_, either single or double, being used instead. + +5. The use of _y_ as a vowel, and of _e_ as _y_. + +6. The absence of _z_. + +7. Use of _uu_, as _w_, or _v_: Old Saxon. + +8. The use, in certain conditions, of _f_ for _v_. + +9. The presence of the simple single signs _th_ and _dh_, for the _th_ in +_thin_, and the _th_ in _thine_. + +Of the Anglo-Saxon alphabet we may safely say that it was _insufficient_. +The points wherein the Latin alphabet was {207} improved in its adaptation +to the Gothic tongues, are, 1. the admission of _th_ and _dh_; 2. the +evolution of _w_ out of _u_. Upon this latter circumstance, and on _k_ and +_z_, I make the following extract from the Latin Dedication of Otfrid's +Krist:--"Hujus enim linguae barbaries, ut est inculta 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," +And, further, in respect to other orthographical difficulties:--"Interdum +vero nec _a_, nec _e_, nec _i_, nec _u_, vocalium sonos praecanere potui, +ibi _y_ Grecum mihi videbatur ascribi. Et etiam hoc elementum lingua haec +horrescit interdum; nulli se characteri aliquotiens in quodam sono nisi +difficile jungens. _K_ et _z_ saepius haec lingua extra usum Latinitatis +utitur; quae grammatici inter litteras dicunt esse superfluas. Ob stridorem +autem dentium interdum ut puto in hac lingua _z_ utuntur, _k_ autem propter +faucium sonoritatem." + +s. 265. _The Anglo-Norman Period._--Between the Latin alphabet, as applied +to the Anglo-Saxon, and the Latin alphabet, as applied to the +Norman-French, there are certain points of difference. In the first place, +the sound-system of the languages (like the French) derived from the Latin, +bore a greater resemblance to that of the Romans, than was to be found +amongst the Gothic tongues. Secondly, the alphabets of the languages in +point were more exclusively Latin. In the present French, Italian, Spanish, +and Portuguese, there is an exclusion of the _k_. This is not the case with +the Anglo-Norman. Like the Latins, the Anglo-Normans considered that the +sound of the Greek [theta] was represented by _th_: not, however, having +this sound in their language, there was no corresponding sign in their +alphabet. The greatest mischief done by the Norman influence was the +ejection from the English alphabet of _th_ and _dh_. In other respects the +alphabet was improved. The letters _z_, _k_, _j_, were either imported or +more currently recognised. The letter _y_ took a semi-vowel power, having +been previously represented by _e_; {208} itself having the power of _i_. +The mode of spelling the compound sibilant with _ch_ was evolved. My +notions concerning this mode of spelling are as follows:--At a given period +the sound of _ce_ in _ceaster_, originally that of _ke_, had become, first, +that of _ksh_, and, secondly, that of _tsh_; still it was spelt _ce_, the +_e_, in the eyes of the Anglo-Saxons, having the power of _y_. In the eyes +also of the Anglo-Saxons the compound sound of _ksh_, or _tsh_, would +differ from that of _k_ by the addition of _y_: this, it may be said, was +the Anglo-Saxon view of the matter. The Anglo-Norman view was different. +Modified by the part that, in the combination _th_, was played by the +aspirate _h_, it was conceived by the Anglo-Normans, that _ksh_, or _tsh_, +differed from _k_, not by the addition of _y_ (expressed by _e_), but by +that of _h_. Hence the combination _ch_ as sounded in _chest_. The same was +the case with _sh_. This latter statement is a point in the history, not so +much of an alphabet, as of an orthography. + +The preceding sketch, as has been said more than once before, has been +given with one view only, _viz._, that of accounting for defective modes of +spelling. The history of almost all alphabets is the same. Originally +either insufficient, erroneous, or inconsistent, they are transplanted from +one language to a different, due alterations and additions rarely being +made. + +s. 266. 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]. The following extract from the +Ormulum (written in the thirteenth century) is the fullest recognition of +the practice that I have met with. The extract is from Thorpe's Analecta +Anglo-Saxonica. + + And whase wilenn shall this boc, + Efft otherr sithe writenn, + Himm bidde iec 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: + + {209} + And tatt he loke wel thatt he + _An boc-staff write twiggess_,[37] + 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 wel to sothe. + +Concerning the various other orthographical expedients, such as the +reduplication of the vowel to express its length (_mood_), &c., I can give +no satisfactory detailed history. The influence of the Anglo-Norman, a +language derived from the Latin, established, in its fullest force, the +recognition of the etymological principle. + +s. 267. "I cannot trace the influence of the Moeso-Gothic alphabet, except, +perhaps, in the case of the Anglo-Saxon letters _th_ and _[wynn]_, upon any +other alphabet; _nor does it seem to have been itself acted upon by any +earlier Gothic alphabet_." (See p. 205.) The reason for the remark in +Italics was as follows: In the Icelandic language the word _run_ signifies +a _letter_, and the word _runa_ a _furrow_, or _line_. It has also some +secondary meanings, which it is unnecessary to give in detail. Upon a vast +number of inscriptions, some upon rocks, some upon stones of a defined +shape, we find an alphabet different (at least, apparently so) from that of +the Greeks, Latins, and Hebrews, and also unlike that of any modern nation. +In this alphabet there is a marked deficiency of curved or rounded lines, +and an exclusive preponderance of straight ones. As it was engraved rather +than written, this is what we naturally expect. These letters are called +Runes, and the alphabet which they constitute is called the Runic alphabet. +Sometimes, by an extension of meaning, the Old Norse language, wherein they +most frequently occur, is called the Runic language. This is as incorrect +as to call a language an alphabetic language. To say, however, the Runic +stage of a language is neither inaccurate nor inconvenient. The Runic +alphabet, whether borrowed or invented by the early Goths, is of greater +antiquity {210} than either the oldest Teutonic or the Moeso-Gothic +alphabets. The forms, names, and order of the letters may be seen in +Hickes' Thesaurus, in Olai Wormii Literatura Runica, in Rask's Icelandic +Grammar, and in W. Grimm's Deutsche Runer. + +The original number of the Runic letters is sixteen; expressing the sounds +of _f_, _u_, _th_, _o_, _r_, _k_, _h_, _n_, _a_, _i_, _s_, _t_, _b_, _l_, +_m_, _y_. To these are added four spurious Runes, denoting _c_, _x_, _ae_, +_oe_, and eight pointed Runes after the fashion of the pointed letters in +Hebrew. In all this we see the influence of the imported alphabet upon the +original Runes, rather than that of the original Runes upon the imported +alphabet. It should, however, be remarked, that in the Runic alphabet the +sound of _th_ in _thin_ is expressed by a simple sign, and that by a sign +not unlike the Anglo-Saxon th. + +s. 268. _The Order of the Alphabet._--In the history of our alphabet, we +have had the history of the 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? In the year 1835 I conceived, that in the +order of the Hebrew alphabet I had discovered a very artificial +arrangement. I also imagined that this artificial arrangement had been +detected by no one besides myself. Two years afterwards a friend[38] stated +to me that he had made a similar observation, and in 1839 appeared, in Mr. +Donaldson's New Cratylus, the quotation with which the present section will +be concluded. The three views in the main coincide; and, as each has been +formed independently (Mr. Donaldson's being the first recorded), they give +the satisfactory result of three separate investigations coinciding in a +theory essentially the same. 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_. + {211} + 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. _Koph_ 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 _koph_ (_g_, _kh_, _k`_) constitute a +series called series K. Let _daleth_, _teth_, and _tau_ (_d_, _t`_, _t_) +constitute a series called series T. Let _aleph_, _he_, and _ayn_ +constitute a series called the vowel series. Let the first four letters be +taken in their order. + + 1. _Aleph_ of the vowel series. + 2. _Beth_ of series P. + 3. _Gimel_ of series K. + 4. _Daleth_ of series T. + +Herein the consonant of series B comes next to the letter of the vowel +series; that of series K follows; and, in the last place, comes the letter +of series D. After this the order changes: _daleth_ being followed by _he_ +of the vowel series. + + 5. _He_ of the vowel series. + 6. _Vaw_ of series P. + 7. _Zayn_ ---- + 8. _Kheth_ of series K. + 9. _Teth_ of series T. + +In this second sequence the _relative_ positions of _v_, _kh_, and _t`_ are +the same in respect to each other, and the same in respect to the vowel +series. The sequence itself is broken by the letter _zayn_, but it is +remarkable that the principle of the sequence is the same. Series P follows +the vowel, and series T is farthest from it. After this the system becomes +but fragmentary. Still, even now, _pe_, of series P, follows _ayn_; _tau_, +of {212} series D, is farthest from it; and _koph_, of series K, is +intermediate. I am satisfied that we have in the Hebrew alphabet, and in +all alphabets derived from it (consequently in the English), if not a +system, the rudiments of a system, and that the system is of the sort +indicated above; in other words, that the order of the alphabet is a +_circulating order_. + +In Mr. Donaldson's hands this view is not only a fact, but an instrument of +criticism:--"The fact is, in our opinion, the original Semitic alphabet +contained only sixteen letters. This appears from the organic arrangement +of their characters. The remaining sixteen letters appear in the following +order:--_aleph_, _beth_, _gimel_, _daleth_, _he_, _vaw_, _kheth_, _teth_, +_lamed_, _mem_, _nun_, _samech_, _ayn_, _pe_, _koph_, _tau_. If we examine +this order more minutely, we shall see that it is not arbitrary or +accidental, but strictly organic, according to the Semitic articulation. We +have four classes, each consisting of four letters: the first and second +classes consist each of three mutes, preceded by a breathing; the third of +the three liquids and the sibilant, which, perhaps, closed the oldest +alphabet of all; and the fourth contains the three supernumerary mutes, +preceded by a breathing. We place the characters first vertically:-- + + Aleph [Alef] First breathing + Beth [Bet] B } + Gimel [Gimel] G } _Media._ + Daleth [Dalet] D } + He [He] Second breathing. + Vaw [Vav] Bh } + Kheth [Khet] Gh } _Aspirate._ + Teth [Tet] Dh } + Lamed [Lamed] L } + Mem [Mem] M } _Liquids._ + Nun [Nun] N } + Samech [Samekh] S _The Sibilant_. + Ayn [Ayin] Third breathing. + Pe [Pe] P } + Koph [Kuf] K } _Tenues._ + Tau [Tav] T } + +In the horizontal arrangement we shall, for the sake of greater simplicity, +omit the liquids and the sibilant, and then we have {213} + + _Breathings._ _Labials._ _Palatals._ _Linguals._ + + [Alef] [Bet] [Gimel] [Dalet] + [He] [Vav] [Khet] [Tet] + [Ayin] [Pe] [Kuf] [Tav] + +In this we see, that, while the horizontal lines give us the arrangement of +the mutes according to the breathings, the vertical columns exhibit them +arranged according to the organ by which they are produced. Such a +classification is obviously artificial." + +s. 269. _Parallel and equivalent orthographies._--Let there be in two given +languages the sound of _k_, as in _kin_. Let each of these languages +represent it by the same letter, _k_. In this case, the two orthographies +are identical. Let, however, one nation represent it by _k_, and another by +c. In this case the orthographies are not identical, but parallel. The same +is the case with combinations. Let one nation (say the Anglo-Saxon) +represent the sound of _y_ (in _ye_) by _e_, whilst another nation (the +Norse) represents it by _j_. What the Anglo-Saxon spells _ceaster_, the +Northman spells _kjaster_; and what the Northman spells _kjaere_, the +Anglo-Saxon spells _ceaere_. Let the sound of this _ce_ and _kj_ undergo a +change, and become _ksh_; _kjaere_ and _ceaere_, being pronounced +_kshaere_. The view of the Northman and Anglo-Saxon will be the same; each +will consider that the compound sound differs from the simple one by the +addition of the sound of _y_; that sound being expressed in one nation by +_e_, and in the other by _j_. In this case the two expressions of the +compound sound are parallel, its elements being considered the same, +although the signs by which those elements are expressed are different. + +Let, however, a different view of the compound sound be taken. Let it be +thought that the sound of _ksh_ differs from that of _k_, not by the +addition of the sound of _y_, but by that of _h_; and so let it be spelt +_kh_ or _ch_. In this case the orthographies _kh_ and _kj_ (or _ce_) are +not parallel, but equivalent. They express the same sound, but they do not +denote the same elements. The same sound is, very possibly, expressed by +the Anglo-Saxon _ce_, the Norwegian _kj_, and the English _ch_. In this +case _ce_ and _kj_ are parallel, _ce_ and _ch_ equivalent, orthographies. + + * * * * * + + +{214} + +PART IV. + +ETYMOLOGY. + +-------- + +CHAPTER I. + +ON THE PROVINCE OF ETYMOLOGY. + +s. 270. 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. What follows is an exhibition of +the province or department of etymology. + +If in the English language we take such a word as _fathers_, we are enabled +to divide it into two parts; in other words, to reduce it into two +elements. By comparing it with the word _father_, we see that the _s_ is +neither part nor parcel of the original word. The word _fathers_ is a word +capable of being analysed; _father_ being the original primitive word, and +_s_ the secondary superadded termination. From the word _father_, the word +_fathers_ is derived, or (changing the expression) deduced, or descended. +What has been said of the word _fathers_ may also be said of _fatherly_, +_fatherlike_, _fatherless_, &c. Now, from the word _father_, all these +words (_fathers_, _fatherly_, _fatherlike_ and _fatherless_) differ in +form, and (not, however, necessarily) in meaning. To become such a word as +_fathers_, &c., the word _father_ is changed. Of changes of this sort, it +is the province of etymology to take cognizance. + +Compared with the form _fathers_, the word _father_ is the older form of +the two. The word _father_ is a word current in this the nineteenth +century. The same word was current in {215} the first century, although +under a different form, and in a different language. Thus, in the Latin +language, the form was _pater_; and earlier still, there is the Sanskrit +form _pitr_. Now, just as the word _father_, compared with _fathers_, is +original and primitive, so is _pater_, compared with _father_, original and +primitive. The difference is, that in respect to _father_ and _fathers_, +the change that takes place, 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 the province of +etymology to take cognizance. + +In its widest signification, etymology takes cognizance _of the changes of +the form of words_. However, as the etymology that compares the forms +_fathers_ and _father_ is different from the etymology that compares +_father_ and _pater_, we have, of etymology, two sorts: one dealing with +the changes of form that words undergo in one and the same language +(_father_, _fathers_), the other dealing with the changes that words +undergo in passing from one language to another (_pater_, _father_). + +The first of these sorts may be called etymology in the limited sense of +the word, or the etymology of the grammarian. In this case it is opposed to +orthoepy, orthography, syntax, and the other parts of grammar. This is the +etymology of the ensuing pages. + +The second may be called etymology in the wide sense of the word, +historical etymology, or comparative etymology. + +It must be again repeated that the two sorts of etymology agree in one +point, viz., in taking cognizance of the _changes of form that words +undergo_. Whether the change arise from grammatical reasons, as _father_, +_fathers_, or from a change of language taking place in the lapse of time, +as _pater_, _father_, is a matter of indifference. + +In the Latin _pater_, and in the English _father_, we have one of two +things, either two words descended or derived from each other, or two words +descended or derived from a common original source. + +In _fathers_ we have a formation deduced from the radical word _father_. +{216} + +In _fatherlike_ we have a compound word capable of being analysed into the +two primitive words, 1. _father_; 2. _like_. + +With these preliminaries we may appreciate (or criticise) Dr. Johnson's +explanation of the word etymology. + +"ETYMOLOGY, N. S. (_etymologia_, Lat.) [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._" + + * * * * * + + +{217} + +CHAPTER II. + +ON GENDER. + +s. 271. The nature of gender is best exhibited by reference to those +languages wherein the distinction of gender is most conspicuous. Such a +language, amongst others, is the Latin. + +How far is there such a thing as gender in the English language? This +depends upon the meaning that we attach to the word gender. + +In the Latin language, where there are confessedly genders, we have the +words _taurus_, meaning a _bull_, and _vacca_, meaning a _cow_. Here the +natural distinction of sex is expressed by _wholly_ different words. With +this we have corresponding modes of expression in English: _e.g._, + + _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. 272. 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. 273. 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; {218} 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. + +This, however, in strict grammatical language, is an approach to gender +rather than gender itself. Its difference from true grammatical gender is +as follows:-- + +Let the Latin words _genitor_ and _genitrix_ be declined:-- + + _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 these +signs are the same in each word, the difference of meaning (or sex) not +affecting them. + +s. 274. 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_. + +{219} + +Here the letters in italics, or the signs of the cases and numbers, are +different, the difference being brought about by the difference of gender. +Now it is very evident that, if _genitrix_ be a specimen of gender, +_domina_ is something more. + +As terms, to be useful, must be limited, it may be laid down, as a sort of +definition, that _there is no gender where there is no affection of the +declension_: consequently, that, although we have, in English, words +corresponding to _genitrix_ and _genitor_, we have no true genders until we +find words corresponding to _dominus_ and _domina_. + +s. 275. 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 a 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. Sex is a natural distinction, gender a grammatical +one. + +s. 276. "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. + +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: for be it observed, that as both words are in the same +case and number, the difference in form must be referred to a difference of +sex expressed by gender. The same is the case with the form _his_ as +compared with _her_. + +The pronoun _it_ (originally _hit_), as compared with _he_, is a specimen +of gender. {220} + +The relative _what_, as compared with the masculine _who_, is a specimen of +gender. + +The forms _it_ (for _hit_) and _he_ are as much genders as _hic_ and +_haec_, and the forms _hic_ and _haec_ are as much genders as _dominus_ and +_domina_. + +s. 277. The formation of the neuter gender by the addition of _-t_, in +words like _wha-t_, _i-t_, and _tha-t_, occurs in other Indo-European +languages. The _-t_ in _tha-t_ is the _-d_ in _istu-d_, Latin, and the _-t_ +in _ta-t_, Sanskrit. Except, however, in the Gothic tongues, the inflection +_-t_ is confined to the _pronouns_. In the Gothic this is not the case. +Throughout all those languages where there is a neuter form for +_adjectives_ at all, that form is either _-t_, or a sound derived from +it:--Moeso-Gothic, _blind-ata_; Old High German, _plint-ez_; Icelandic, +_blind-t_; German, _blind-es_=_blind_, _caec-um_.--See Bopp's Comparative +Grammar, Eastwick and Wilson's translation, p. 171. + +_Which_, as seen below, is _not_ the neuter of _who_. + +s. 278. 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 everything _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. + +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 {221} feminine, pronoun, as is done in the +expressions quoted at the head of this section; still less will it account +for the circumstance of the Germans reversing the gender, and making the +_sun_ feminine, and the _moon_ masculine. + +Let there be a period in the history of a nation wherein the sun and moon +are dealt with, not as inanimate masses of matter, but as animated +divinities. Let there, in other words, be a period in the history of a +nation wherein dead things are personified, and wherein there is a +mythology. Let an object like the _sun_ be deemed a male, and an object +like the _moon_ a female, deity. + +The Germans say the _sun in _her_ glory_; the _moon in _his_ wane_. This +difference between the usage of the two languages, like so many others, is +explained by the influence of the classical languages upon the +English.--"_Mundilfori had two children; a son, M[^a]ni (Moon), and a +daughter, S[^o]l (Sun)._"--Such is an extract (taken second-hand from +Grimm, vol. iii. p. 349) out of an Icelandic mythological work, _viz._, the +prose Edda. In the classical languages, however, _Phoebus_ and _Sol_ are +masculine, and _Luna_ and _Diana_ feminine. Hence it is that, although in +Anglo-Saxon and Old-Saxon the _sun_ is _feminine_, it is in English +masculine. + +_Philosophy_, _charity_, &c., or the names of abstract qualities +personified, take a conventional sex, and are feminine from their being +feminine in Latin. + +As in these words there is no change of form, the consideration of them is +a point of rhetoric, rather than of etymology. + +Upon phrases like _Cock Robin_, _Robin Redbreast_, _Jenny Wren_, expressive +of sex, much information may be collected from Grimm's Deutsche Grammatik, +vol. iii. p. 359. + +s. 279. 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 {222} 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_, so current in German, as the equivalent to +_-ess_, and as a feminine affix (_freund_=_a friend_; _freundinn_=_a female +friend_), is found only in one or two words in English. + + There were five _carlins_ in the south + That fell upon a scheme, + To send a lad to London town + To bring them tidings hame. + + BURNS. + +_Carlin_ means an _old woman_: Icelandic, _kerling_; Sw., _kaering_; Dan. +_kaelling_. Root, _carl_. + +_Vixen_ is a true feminine derivative from _fox_. German, _fuechsinn_. + +_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. + +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_. + Baecere, _a male baker_ } { Bacestre, _a female baker_. + Fidhelere, _a male fiddler_} were { Fidhelstre, _a female fiddler_. + Vebbere, _a male weaver_ } opposed { Vebbestre, _a female weaver_. + Raedere, _a male reader_ } to { 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_; _bakster_=_a {223} baking-woman_; +_waschster_=_a washerwoman_. (Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, iii. p. 339.) 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 _deaconess_ is not wholly unexceptionable; since the +termination _-ess_ is of Latin, the root _deacon_ of Greek origin: this +Greek origin being rendered all the more conspicuous by the spelling, +_deacon_ (from _diaconos_), as compared with the Latin _decanus_. + +9. The circumstance of _prince_ ending in the sound of _s_, works a change +in the accent of the word. As _s_ is the final letter, it is necessary, in +forming the plural number, and the genitive case, to add, not the simple +letter _s_, as in _peers_, _priests_, &c., but the syllable _-es_. This +makes the plural number and genitive case the same as the feminine form. +Hence the feminine form is accented _princ['e]ss_, while _pe['e]ress_, +_pr['i]estess_, &c., carry the accent on the first syllable. _Princ['e]ss_ +is remarkable as being the only word in English where the accent lies on +the subordinate syllable. + +10. It is uncertain whether _kit_, as compared with _cat_, be a feminine +form or a diminutive form; in other words, whether it mean a _female cat_ +or a _young cat_.--See the Chapter on the Diminutives. + +11. _Goose_, _gander_.--One peculiarity in this pair of words has already +been indicated. In the older forms of the word _goose_, such as [Greek: +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_, {224} 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 (taken from Grimm, iii. p. 341) 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. + +12. 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_. (Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, iii. p. +341.) + +13. _Peacock_, _peahen_, _bridegroom_.--In these compounds, it is not the +words _pea_ and _bride_ that are rendered masculine or feminine by the +addition of _cock_, _hen_, and _groom_, but it is the words _cock_, _hen_, +and _groom_ that are modified by prefixing _pea_ and _bride_. For an +appreciation of this distinction, see the Chapter on Composition. + + * * * * * + + +{225} + +CHAPTER III. + +THE NUMBERS. + +s. 280. In the Greek language the word _pataer_ signifies a father, +speaking of _one_, whilst _patere_ signifies _two fathers_, speaking of 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 (in Greek +being extended to verbs). It has, moreover, this peculiarity; it applies, +for the most part, only to things which are naturally double, as _the two +eyes_, _the two hands_, &c. The Latin has no dual number at all, except the +natural dual in the words _ambo_ and _duo_. + +s. 281. 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. 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 {226} +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. + +The numbers, then, in the present English are two, the singular and the +plural. Over what extent of language have we a plural? The Latins say, +_bonus pater_=_a good father_; _boni patres_=_good fathers_. In the Latin, +the adjective _bonus_ changes its form with the change of number of the +substantive that it accompanies. In English it is only the substantive that +is changed. Hence we see that in the Latin language the numbers were +extended to adjectives, whereas in English they are confined to the +substantives and pronouns. Compared with the Anglo-Saxon, the present +English is in the same relation as it is with the Latin. In the Anglo-Saxon +there were plural forms for the adjectives. + +For the forms _selves_ and _others_, see the Syntax. For the present, it is +sufficient to foreshadow a remark which will be made on the word _self_, +_viz._ that whether it be a pronoun, a substantive, or an adjective, is a +disputed point. + +Words like _wheat_, _pitch_, _gold_, &c., where the idea is naturally +singular; words like _bellows_, _scissors_, _lungs_, &c., where the idea is +naturally plural; and words like _deer_, _sheep_, where the same form +serves for the singular and plural, inasmuch as there takes place no change +of form, are not under the province of etymology. + +s. 282. The current rule is, that the plural number is formed from the +singular by adding _s_, as _father_, _fathers_. {227} However, if the +reader will revert to the Section upon the sharp and flat Mutes, where it +is stated that mutes of different degrees of sharpness and flatness cannot +come together in the same syllable, he will find occasion to take to the +current rule a verbal exception. The letter 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 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_. Upon the formation of the +English plural some further remarks are necessary. + +I. 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. See the Section +on the Law of Accommodation. + +II. Whether the first of the two mutes should be accommodated to the second +(_aps_, _afs_, _ats_, _aths_, _asks_), or the second to the first (_abz_, +_avz_, _adhz_, _agz_), is determined by the habit of the particular +language in question; and, with a few apparent exceptions (mark the word +_apparent_), it is the rule of the English language to accommodate the +second sound to the first, and not _vice vers[^a]_. + +III. Such combinations as _peas_, _trees_, _hills_, _hens_, &c. (the _s_ +preserving its original power, and being sounded as if written _peace_, +_treece_, _hillce_, _hence_), being pronounceable, the change from _s_ to +_z_, in words so ending, is _not_ a matter determined by the necessity of +the case, but by the habit of the English language. + +IV. Although the vast majority of our plurals ends, not in _s_, but in _z_, +the original addition was not _z_, but _s_. This we {228} 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. 283. _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. + +s. 284. "A few _apparent_ exceptions."--These words are taken from +Observation II. in the present section. The apparent exceptions to the rule +there laid down are the words _loaf_, _wife_, and a few others, whose +plural is not sounded _loafs_, _wifs_ (_loafce_, _wifce_), but _loavz_, +_wivz_ (written _loaves_, _wives_). Here it seems as if _z_ had been added +to the singular; and, contrary to rule, the final letter of the original +word been accommodated to the _z_, instead of the _z_ being accommodated to +the final syllable of the word, and so becoming _s_. It is, however, very +probable that instead of the plural form being changed, it is the singular +that has been modified. In the Anglo-Saxon the _f_ at the end of words (as +in the present Swedish) had the power of _v_. In the allied language the +words in point are spelt with the _flat_ mute, as _weib_, _laub_, _kalb_, +_halb_, _stab_, {229} German. The same is the case with _leaf_, _leaves_; +_calf_, _calves_; _half_, _halves_; _staff_, _staves_; _beef_, _beeves_: +this last word being Anglo-Norman. + +_Pence._--The peculiarity of this word consists in having a _flat_ liquid +followed by the sharp sibilant _s_ (spelt _ce_), contrary to the rule given +above. In the first place, it is a contracted form from _pennies_; in the +second place, its sense is collective rather than plural; in the third +place, the use of the sharp sibilant lene distinguishes it from _lens_, +sounded _lenz_. That its sense is collective rather than plural (a +distinction to which the reader's attention is directed), we learn from the +word _sixpence_, which, compared with _sixpences_, is no plural, but a +singular form. + +_Dice._--In respect to its form, peculiar for the reason that _pence_ is +peculiar. We find the sound of _s_ after a vowel, where that of _z_ is +expected. This distinguishes _dice_ for play, from _dies_ (_diez_) for +coining. _Dice_, perhaps, like _pence_, is collective rather than plural. + +In _geese_, _lice_, and _mice_, we have, apparently, the same phenomenon as +in _dice_, viz., a sharp sibilant (_s_) where a _flat_ one (_z_) is +expected. The _s_, however, in these words is not the sign of the plural, +but the last letter of the original word. + +_Alms._--This is no true plural form. The _s_ belongs to the original word, +Anglo-Saxon, _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 {230} 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] (_fysica_). 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. 285. 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 {231} 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 other Gothic tongue the +following forms in _-r_.-- + + Hus-er, _Houses_. Old High German. + Chalp-ir, _Calves_. ditto. + Lemp-ir, _Lambs_. ditto. + Plet-ir, _Blades of grass_. ditto. + Eig-ir, _Eggs_. ditto. + +and others, the peculiarity of which is the fact of their all being _of the +neuter gender_. The particular Gothic dialect wherein they occur most +frequently is the Dutch of Holland. + +Now, the theory respecting the form so propounded by Grimm (D. G. iii. p. +270) is as follows:-- + +1. The _-r_ represents an earlier _-s_. + +2. Which was, originally, no sign of a plural number, but merely a neuter +derivative affix, common to the singular as well as to the plural number. + +3. In this form it appears in the Moeso-Gothic: _ag-is_=_fear_ (whence +_ague_=_shivering_), _hat-is_=_hate_, _rigv-is_=_smoke_ (_reek_). In none +of these words is the _-s_ radical, and in none is it limited to the +singular number. + +To these views Bopp adds, that the termination in question is the Sanskrit +_-as_, a neuter affix; as in _t[^e]j-as_=_splendour_, _strength_, from +_tij_=to _sharpen_.--V. G. pp. 141-259, Eastwick's and Wilson's +translation. + +To these doctrines of Grimm and Bopp, it should be added, that the reason +why a singular derivational affix should become the sign of the plural +number, lies, most probably, in the _collective_ nature of the words in +which it occurs: _Husir_=_a collection of houses_, _eigir_=_a collection of +eggs, eggery _or_ eyry_. For further observations on the power of _-r_, and +for reasons for believing it to be the same as in the words _Jew-r-y_, +_yeoman-r-y_, see a paper of Mr. Guest's, Philol. Trans., May 26, 1843. +There we find the remarkable form _lamb-r-en_, from Wicliffe, Joh. xxi. +_Lamb-r-en_ : _lamb_ :: _child-r-en_ : _child_. {232} + +s. 286. _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. 287. _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 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. 288. _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. + +{233} + +If this were a plural form, it would be a very anomalous one. The _-en_, +however, is no more a sign of the plural than is the _-es_ in _rich-es_ +(_richesse_). The proper form is in _-ain_ or _-eyn_. + + A false theefe, + That came like a false fox, my _pullain_ to kill and mischeefe. + + _Gammer Gurton's Needle_, v. 2. + +_Chickens._--A third variety of the double inflection (_en_ + _s_), with +the additional peculiarity of the form _chicken_ being used, at present, +almost exclusively in the singular number, although, originally, it was, +probably, the plural of _chick_. So Wallis considered it:--"At olim etiam +per _-en_ vel _-yn_ formabant pluralia: quorum pauca admodum adhuc +retinemus. Ut, _an ox_, _a chick_, pluraliter _oxen_, _chicken_ (sunt qui +dicunt in singulari _chicken_, et in plurali _chickens_)."--(P. 77). +_Chick_, _chick-en_, _chick-en-s_. + +_Fern._--According to Wallis the _-n_ in _fer-n_ is the _-en_ in _oxen_, in +other words, a plural termination:--"A _fere_ (_filix_) pluraliter _fern_ +(verum nunc plerumque _fern_ utroque numero dicitur, sed et in plurali +_ferns_); nam _fere_ et _feres_ prope obsoleta sunt."--(P. 77.) Subject to +this view, the word _fer-n-s_ would exhibit the same phenomenon as the word +_chicke-n-s_. It is doubtful, however, whether Wallis's view be correct. A +reason for believing the _-n_ to be radical is presented by the Anglo-Saxon +form _fearn_, and the Old High German, _varam_. + +_Women._--Pronounced _wimmen_, as opposed to the singular form _woomman_. +Probably an instance of accommodation. + +_Houses._--Pronounced _houz-ez_. The same peculiarity in the case of _s_ +and _z_, as occurs between _f_ and _v_ in words like _life_, _lives_, &c. + +_Paths, youths._--Pronounced _padhz_, _yoodhz_. The same peculiarity in the +case of _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_."--P. +79. + + * * * * * + + +{234} + +CHAPTER IV. + +ON THE CASES. + +s. 289. The extent to which there are, in the English language, cases, +depends on the meaning which we attach to the word case. In the sentence _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 _a fathers house_ the idea is, there or thereabouts, the same; the +relation or connexion between the two words being the same. The expression, +however, differs. In _a father's house_ the relation, or connexion, is +expressed, not by a preposition, but by a change of form, _father_ becoming +_father's_. + +_He gave the house to a father._--Here the words _father_ and _house_ stand +in another sort of relationship; the relationship being expressed by the +preposition _to_. The idea _to a father_ differs from the idea _of a +father_, in being expressed in one way only; _viz._, by the preposition. +There is no second mode of expressing it by a change of form, as was done +with _father's_. + +_The father taught the child._--Here there is neither preposition nor +change of form. The connexion between the words _father_ and _child_ is +expressed by the arrangement only. + +Now if the relation alone between two words constitutes a case, the words +or sentences, _child_; _to a father_; _of a father_; and _father's_, are +all equally cases; of which one may be {235} 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 is a remark, at least as old as Dr. Beattie,[39] that if the use of +a preposition constitute a case, there must be as many cases in a language +as there are prepositions, and that "_above a man_, _beneath a man_, +_beyond a man_, _round about a man_, _within a man_, _without a man_, shall +be cases, as well as _of a man_, _to a man_, and _with a man_." + +For etymological purposes it is necessary to limit the meaning of the word +case; and, as a sort of definition, it may be laid down that _where there +is no change of form there is no case_. With this remark, the English +language may be compared with the Latin. + + _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 _father_ we have but +two cases, there may not be other words wherein there are more than two. + +_In order to constitute a case there must be a change of form._--This +statement is a matter of definition. A second question, however, arises out +of it; _viz._, whether _every change of form constitute a case_? In the +Greek language there are the words [Greek: erin] (_erin_), and [Greek: +erida] (_erida_). Unlike the words _father_ and _father's_ these two words +have precisely the same meaning. Each is called an accusative; and each, +{236} consequently, is said to be in the same case with the other. This +indicates the statement, that in order to constitute a case there must be +not _only a change of form_, _but also a change of meaning_. Whether such a +limitation of the word be convenient, is a question for the general +grammarian. At present we merely state that there _is no change of case +unless there be a change of form_. Hence, in respect to the word _patribus_ +(and others like it), which is sometimes translated _from fathers_, and at +other times _to fathers_, we must say, not that in the one case the word is +ablative and in the other dative, but that a certain case is used with a +certain latitude of meaning. This remark bears on the word _her_ in +English. In _her book_ the sense is that of the case currently called +genitive. In _it moved her_, the sense is that of the case currently called +the accusative. If we adhere, however, to what we have laid down, we must +take exceptions to this mode of speaking. It is not that out of the single +form _her_ we can get two cases, but that a certain form has two powers; +one that of the Latin genitive, and another that of the Latin accusative. + +s. 290. This leads to an interesting question, _viz._, what notions are +sufficiently allied to be expressed _by_ the same form, and _in_ the same +case? The word _her_, in its two senses, may, perhaps, be dealt with as a +single case, because the notions conveyed by the genitive and accusative +are, perhaps, sufficiently allied to be expressed by the same word. Are the +notions, however, _of a mistress_, and _mistresses_, so allied? I think +not; and yet in the Latin language the same form, _dominae_, expresses +both. Of _dominae_=_of a mistress_, and of _dominae_=_mistresses_, we +cannot say that there is one and the same case with a latitude of meaning. +The words were, perhaps, once different. And this 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 _smith_ +(_smidh_), _end_ (_ende_), and _day_ (_daeg_), were, respectively, +_smithes_ (_smidhes_), _endes_, and _dayes_ (_daeges_); whilst the +nominative plurals were, respectively, _smithas_ (_smidhas_), _endas_, and +_dayas_ (_daegas_). A process of change took place, by which the vowel of +the last syllable in each {237} 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. 291. _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. + +_Accusative._--Some call this the objective case. The words _him_ +(singular) and _them_ (plural) (whatever they may have been originally) are +now true accusatives. The accusative case is found in pronouns only. +_Thee_, _me_, _us_, and _you_ are, to a certain extent, true accusatives. + +They are accusative thus far: 1. They are not derived from any other case. +2. They are distinguished from the forms _I_, _my_, &c. 3. Their meaning is +accusative. Nevertheless, they are only imperfect accusatives. They have no +sign of case, and are distinguished by negative characters only. + +One word of English is probably a true accusative in the strict sense of +the term, _viz._, the word _twain_=_two_. The _-n_ in _twai-n_ is the _-n_ +in _hine_=_him_ and _hwone_=_whom_. This we see from the following +inflection:-- + + _Neut._ _Masc._ _Fem._ + _N. and Ac._ Tw['a], Tw['e]gen, Tw['a]. + \------\/-------/ + _Abl. and Dat._ Tw['a]m, Tw['ae]m. + _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 {238} _-n_ is by no +means radical; besides which, it _is_ the sign of an accusative case, and +is _not_ the sign of a nominative. + +_Note._--The words _him_ and _them_ are true accusatives in even a less +degree than _thee_, _me_, _us_, and _you_. The Anglo-Saxon equivalents to +the Latin words _eos_ and _illos_ were _hi_ (or _hig_) and _th['a]_ (or +_thaege_); in other words, the sign of the accusative was other than the +sound of _-m_. The case which _really_ ended in _-m_ was the so-called +dative; so that the Anglo-Saxon forms _him_ (or _heom_) and _th['a]m_=the +Latin _iis_ and _illis_. + +This fact explains the meaning of the words, _whatever they may have been +originally_, in a preceding sentence. It also indicates a fresh element in +the criticism and nomenclature of the grammarian; _viz._, the extent to +which the _history_ of a form regulates its position as an inflection. + +_Dative._--In the antiquated word _whilom_ (_at times_), we have a remnant +of the old dative in _-m_. The _sense_ of the word is adverbial; its form, +however, is that of a dative case. + +_Genitive._--Some call this the possessive case. It is found in +substantives and pronouns (_father's_, _his_), but not in adjectives. It is +formed like the nominative plural, by the addition of the lene sibilant +(_father_, _fathers_; _buck_, _bucks_); or if the word end in _s_, by that +of _es_ (_boxes_, _judges_, &c.) It is found in both numbers: _the men's +hearts_; _the children's bread_. In the plural number, however, it is rare; +so rare, indeed, that wherever the plural ends in _s_ (as it almost always +does), there is no genitive. If it were not so, we should have such words +as _fatherses_, _foxeses_, _princesseses_, &c. + +_Instrumental._--The following extracts from Rask's Anglo-Saxon Grammar, +teach us that there exist in the present English two powers of the word +spelt _t-h-e_, or of the so-called definite article. + +"The demonstrative pronouns are _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:-- {239} + + _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] th['ae]re thise thisse. + _D._ th['a]m th['ae]re thisum thisse. + _G._ thaes th['ae]re 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_, _seo_, in +all cases, but especially with a relative signification, and, in later +times, as an article. Hence the English article _the_. + +"_thy_ seems justly to be received as a proper _ablativus instrumenti_, as +it occurs often in this character, even in the masculine gender; as, _mid +thy ['a]the_=_with that oath_ (Inae Reges, 53). And in the same place in +the dative, _on th['ae]m ['a]the_=_in that oath_."--Pp. 56, 57. + +Hence the _the_ that has originated out of the Anglo-Saxon _th['y]_ is one +word; 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_ (=_thy_) may be +seen from the following Anglo-Saxon inflection of the interrogative +pronoun:-- + + _Neut._ _Masc._ + _N._ Hwaet Hw['a]. + _A._ Hwaet Hwone (hwaene). + \------\/------/ + _Abl._ _Hwi_ + _D._ Hw['a]m (hwae'm) + _G._ Hwaes. + +Hence, then, in _the_ and _why_ we have instrumental ablatives, or, simply, +_instrumentals_. + +s. 292. _The determination of cases._--How do we determine cases? In other +words, why do we call _him_ and _them_ {240} 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 accusative, and the +form dative, we should doubt which test to take. + +My own opinion is, that it would be convenient to determine cases by the +_form_ of the word _alone_; so that, even if a word had a dative sense only +once, where it had an accusative sense ten thousand times, such a word +should be said to be in the dative case. Now, as stated above, the words +_him_ and _them_ (to which we may add _whom_) were once dative cases; _-m_ +in Anglo-Saxon being the sign of the dative case. In the time of the +Anglo-Saxons their sense coincided with their form. At present they are +dative forms with an accusative meaning. Still, as the word _give_ takes +after it a dative case, we have, even now, in the sentence, _give it him_, +_give it them_, remnants of the old dative sense. To say _give it to him_, +_to them_, is unnecessary and pedantic: neither do I object to the +expression, _whom shall I give it_? If ever the _formal_ test become +generally recognised and consistently adhered to, _him_, _them_, and _whom_ +will be called datives with a latitude of meaning; and then the only true +and unequivocal accusatives in the English language will be the forms +_you_, _thee_, _us_, _me_, and _twain_. + +_My_, an accusative form (_meh_, _me_, _mec_), has now a genitive sense. +The same may be said of _thy_. + +_Me_, originally an accusative form (both _me_ and _my_ can grow out of +_mec_ and _meh_), had, even with the Anglo-Saxons, a dative sense. _Give it +me_ is correct English. The same may be said of _thee_. + +_Him_, a dative form, has now an accusative sense. + +_Her._--For this word, as well as for further details on _me_ and _my_, see +the Chapters on the Personal and Demonstrative Pronouns. {241} + +s. 293. When all traces of the original dative signification are effaced, +and when all the dative cases in a language are similarly affected, an +accusative case may be said to have originated out of a dative. + +s. 294. Thus far the question has been concerning the immediate origin of +cases: their remote origin is a different matter. + +The word _um_ occurs in Icelandic. In Danish and Swedish it is _om_; in the +Germanic languages _omme_, _umbi_, _umpi_, _ymbe_, and also _um_. Its +meaning is _at_, _on_, _about_. The word _whilom_ is the substantive +_while_=_a time_ or _pause_ (Dan. _hvile_=_to rest_), with the addition of +the preposition _om_. That the particular dative form in _om_ has arisen +out of the noun _plus_ the preposition is a safe assertion. I am not +prepared, however, to account for the formation of all the cases in this +manner. + +s. 295. _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. 296. _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 all the languages of the vast Indo-European tribe, except the Celtic, +the genitive ends in _s_, just as it does in {242} 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. + +For further remarks upon the English genitive, see the Cambridge +Philological Museum, vol. ii. p. 246. + + * * * * * + + +{243} + +CHAPTER V. + +THE PERSONAL PRONOUNS. + +s. 297. _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. + +In other languages the current pronouns of the third person are, as in +English, demonstrative rather than personal. + +The usual declension of the personal pronouns is exceptionable. _I_ and +_me_, _thou_ and _ye_, stand in no etymological relations to each other. +The true view of the words is, that they are not irregular but defective. +_I_ has no _oblique_, and _me_ no nominative case. And so with respect to +the rest. + +_I_, in German _ich_, Icelandic _ek_, corresponds with [Greek: ego], and +_ego_ of the classical languages; _ego_ and [Greek: ego] being, like _I_, +defective in the oblique cases. + +_My_, as stated above, is a form originally accusative, but now used in a +genitive sense. + +_Me._--In Anglo-Saxon this was called a dative form. The fact seems to be +that both _my_ and _me_ grow out of an accusative form, _meh_, _mec_. + +That the sound of _k_ originally belonged to the pronouns _me_ and _thee_, +we learn not only from the Anglo-Saxons _mec_, _thec_, _meh_, _theh_, but +from the Icelandic _mik_, _thik_, and the German _mich_, _dich_. This +accounts for the form _my_; since _y_=_ey_, and the sounds of _y_ and _g_ +are allied. That both _me_ and _my_ can be evolved from _mik_, we see in +the present Scandinavian languages, where, very often even in the same +district, _mig_ is pronounced both _mey_ and _mee_. {244} + +_We_ and _our_.--These words are not in the condition of _I_ and _me_. +Although the fact be obscured, they are really in an etymological relation +to each other. This we infer from the alliance between the sounds of _w_ +and _ou_, and from the Danish forms _vi_ (_we_), _vor_ (_our_). It may be +doubted, however, whether _our_ be a true genitive rather than an +adjectival form. In the form _ours_ we find it playing the part, not of a +case, but of an independent word. Upon this, however, too much stress +cannot be laid. In Danish it takes a neuter form: _vor_=_noster_; +_vort_=_nostrum_. From this I conceive that it agrees, not with the Latin +genitive _nostr[^u]m_, but with the adjective _noster_. + +_Us, we, our._--Even _us_ is in an etymological relation to _we_. That _we_ +and _our_ are so, has just been shown. Now in Anglo-Saxon there were two +forms of _our_, _viz_., _['u]re_ (=_nostr[^u]m_), and _user_ (=_noster_). +This connects _we_ and _us_ through _our_. + +From these preliminary notices we have the changes in form of the true +personal pronouns, as follows:-- + +1ST PERSON + + _1st Term._ (_for nominative singular_). + _I._ Undeclined. + _2nd Term._ (_for the singular number_). + Acc. _Me_. Gen. _My_. Form in _n_--_Mine_. + _3rd Term._ (_for the plural number_). + Nom. _We_. Acc. _Us_. Form in _r_--_Our_, _ours_. + +2ND PERSON. + + _1st Term._ (_for the singular number_). + Nom. _Thou_. Acc. _Thee_. Gen. _Thy_. Form in _n_--_Thine_. + _2nd Term._ (_for the plural number_). + Nom. _Ye_. Acc. _You_. Form in _r_--_Your_, _yours_. + +s. 298. _We_ and _me_ have been dealt with as distinct words. But it is +only for practical purposes that they can be considered to be thus +separate; since the sounds of _m_ and _w_ are allied, and in Sanskrit the +singular form _ma_=_I_ is looked upon as part of the same word with +_vayam_=_we_. The same is the case with the Greek [Greek: me] (_me_), and +the plural form [Greek: hemeis] (_haemeis_)=_we_. + +_You._--As far as the practice of the present mode of speech {245} 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. All that can be said is, that the historical reason and the +logical reason are at variance. The Anglo-Saxon form for _you_ was _eow_, +for _ye_, _ge_. Neither bear any sign of case at all, so that, form for +form, they are equally and indifferently nominative and accusative, as the +habit of language may make them. Hence, it, perhaps, is more logical to say +that a certain form (_you_) is used _either_ as a nominative or accusative, +than to say that the accusative case is used instead of a nominative. It is +clear that _you_ can be used instead of _ye_ only so far as it is +nominative in power. + +_Ye._--As far as the evidence of such expressions as _get on with ye_ is +concerned, the word _ye_ is an accusative form. The reasons why it should +or should not be treated as such are involved in the previous paragraph. + +_Me._--Carrying out the views just laid down, and admitting _you_ to be a +nominative, or _quasi_-nominative case, we may extend the reasoning to the +word _me_, and call it also a secondary nominative; inasmuch as such +phrases as _it is me_=_it is I_ are common. + +Now to call such expressions incorrect English is to assume the point. No +one says that _c'est moi_ is bad French, and that _c'est je_ is good. The +fact is, that the whole question is a question of degree. Has or has not +the custom been sufficiently prevalent to have transferred the forms _me_, +_ye_, and _you_ from one case to another, as it is admitted to have done +with the forms _him_ and _whom_, once dative, but now accusative? + +_Observe._--That the expression _it is me_=_it is I_ will not justify the +use of _it is him_, _it is her_=_it is he_ and _it is she_. _Me_, _ye_, +_you_, are what may be called _indifferent_ forms, _i. e._ nominative as +much as accusative, and accusative as much as nominative. _Him_ and _her_, +on the other hand, are not indifferent. The _-m_ and _-r_ are respectively +the signs of cases other than the nominative. + +Again: the reasons which allow the form _you_ to be {246} 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_. It is submitted to the reader, that in phrases like +_you are speaking_, &c., even when applied to a single individual, the idea +is really plural; in other words, that 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_. + + * * * * * + + +{247} + +CHAPTER VI. + +ON THE TRUE REFLECTIVE PRONOUN IN THE GOTHIC LANGUAGES, AND ON ITS ABSENCE +IN ENGLISH. + +s. 299. A true reflective pronoun is wanting in English. In other words, +there are no equivalents to the Latin pronominal forms _sui_, _sibi_, _se_. + +Nor yet are there any equivalents in English to the so-called adjectival +forms _suus_, _sua_, _suum_: since _his_ and _her_ are the equivalents to +_ejus_ and _illius_, and are not adjectives but genitive cases. + +At the first view, this last sentence seems unnecessary. It might seem +superfluous to state, that, if there were no such primitive form as _se_ +(or its equivalent), there could be no such secondary form as _suus_ (or +its equivalent). + +Such, however, is not the case. _Suus_ might exist in the language, and yet +_se_ be absent; in other words, the derivative form might have continued +whilst the original one had become extinct. + +Such is really the case with the _Old_ Frisian. The reflective personal +form, the equivalent to _se_, is lost, whilst the reflective possessive +form, the equivalent to _suus_, is found. In the _Modern_ Frisian, however, +both forms are lost; as they also are in the present English. + +The history of the reflective pronoun in the Gothic tongues is as +follows:-- + +_In Moeso-Gothic._--Found in three cases, _seina_, _sis_, _sik_=_sui_, +_sibi_, _se_. + +_In Old Norse._--Ditto. _Sin_, _ser_, _sik_=_sui_, _sibi_, _se_. + +_In Old High German._--The dative form lost; there being no such word as +_sir_=_sis_=_sibi_. Besides this, the genitive {248} or possessive form +_sin_ is used only in the masculine and neuter genders. + +_In Old Frisian._--As stated above, there is here no equivalent to _se_; +whilst there _is_ the form _sin_=_suus_. + +_In Old Saxon._--The equivalent to _se_, _sibi_, and _sui_ very rare. The +equivalent to _suus_ not common, but commoner than in Anglo-Saxon. + +_In Anglo-Saxon._--No instance of the equivalent to _se_ at all. The forms +_sinne_=_suum_, and _sinum_=_suo_, occur in Beowulf. In Caedmon cases of +_sin_=_suus_ are more frequent. Still the usual form is _his_=_ejus_. + +In the Dutch, Danish, and Swedish, the true reflectives, both personal and +possessive, occur; so that the modern Frisian and English stand alone in +respect to the entire absence of them.--Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 321-348. + +The statement concerning the absence of the true reflective in English, +although negative, has an important philological bearing on more points +than one. + +1. It renders the use of the word _self_ much more necessary than it would +be otherwise. + +2. It renders us unable to draw a distinction between the meanings of the +Latin words _suus_ and _ejus_. + +3. It precludes the possibility of the evolution of a middle voice like +that of the Old Norse, where _kalla-sc_=_kalla-sik_. + + * * * * * + + +{249} + +CHAPTER VII. + +THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS, &c. + +s. 300. 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 (and _se_ when found in the language) be taken by +themselves. This is not the case if they be taken along with _he_, _it_, +and _she_. The absence of gender, the peculiarity in their declension, and +their defectiveness are marked characters wherein they agree with each +other, but not with any other words. + +2. The idea expressed by _he_, _it_, and _she_ is naturally that of +demonstrativeness. In the Latin language _is_, _ea_, _id_; _ille_, _illa_, +_illud_; _hic_, _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, it could only +be in their so-called singular number. + +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 being a demonstrative pronoun. + +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]_. + +_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 {250} the oblique +cases and _her_ to be defective in the nominative. + +_Him._--A true dative form, which has replaced the Anglo-Saxon _hine_. When +used as a dative, it was neuter as well as masculine. + +_His._--Originally neuter as well as masculine. Now as a neuter, replaced +by _its_--"et quidem ipsa vox _his_, ut et interrogativum _whose_, nihil +aliud sunt quam _hee's_, _who's_, ubi _s_ omnino idem 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. + +_They_, _their_, _them_.--When _hit_ had been changed into _it_, when +_he['o]_ had been replaced by _she_, and when the single form _the_, as an +article, had come to serve for all the cases of all the genders, two +circumstances took place: 1. The forms _th['a]m_ and _th['a]ra_ as definite +articles became superfluous; and, 2. The connexion between the plural forms +_h['i]_, _heom_, _heora_, and the singular forms _he_ and _it_, grew +indistinct. These were conditions favourable to the use of the forms +_they_, _them_, and _their_, instead of _h['i]_, _heom_, _heora_. + +_Theirs._--In the same predicament with _hers_ and _its_; either the case +of an adjective, or a case formed from a case. {251} + +_Than_ or _then_, and _there_.--Although now adverbs, they were once +demonstrative pronouns, in a certain case and in a certain gender.--_Than_ +and _then_ masculine accusative and singular, _there_ feminine dative and +singular. + +An exhibition of the Anglo-Saxon declension is the best explanation of the +English. Be it observed, that the cases marked in italics are found in the +present language. + +I. + + Se, _se['o]_. + +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_ _th['ae]re_. _thise_ thise thisse. + Dat. th['a]m th['a]m _th['ae]re_. thisum thisum thisse. + Gen. thaes thaes _th['ae]re_. 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. 301. _These._--Here observe-- {252} + +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 letter _e_, and that this _-e_ is the old English and Anglo-Saxon +adjective plural; so that _thes-e_ is formed from _thes_, as _gode_ +(=_boni_) is formed from _god_ (=_bonus_). + +The nominative plural in the Old English ended in _e_; as, + + _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.--_Wiclif_, 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. + + {253} + 6. And _alle_ we that ben in this aray + And maken _all_ this lamentation, + We losten _alle_ our husbondes at that toun. + + _Chau._, The Knightes Tale. + + 7. A _good_ man bryngeth forth _gode_ thingis 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_, Jon. 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_, Matt. xii. + + 12. And _hise_ disciplis camen and token _his_ body.--_Wicliffe_, Matt. + xiv. + + 13. Whan _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. 302. _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:-- + +I. + +_The_--Undeclined. + +{254} + +II. + +_She_--Defective in the oblique cases. + +III. + +_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. + +IV. + +_That._ + + _Neut._ _Masc._ _Fem._ + _Sing. Nom._ That -- -- + _Acc._ That Than,[40] then -- + _Dat._ -- -- There.[40] + \-----------------\/----------------/ + _Plur. Nom._ They.[41] + _Acc._ Them.[41] + _Gen._ Their.[41] + _Secondary Gen._ Theirs.[41] + +V. + +_Singular_, This. _Plural_, These. + +VI. + +_Those_. + + * * * * * + + +{255} + +CHAPTER VIII. + +THE RELATIVE, INTERROGATIVE, AND CERTAIN OTHER PRONOUNS. + +s. 303. 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_. + +s. 304. The following points in the history of the demonstrative and +relative pronouns are taken from Grimm's Deutsche Grammatik, vol. iii. pp. +1, 2, 3. + +Throughout the Indo-European tribe the interrogative or relative idea is +expressed by _k_, or by a modification of _k_; e.g., _qu_, _hv_, or _h_; as +Sanskrit, _kas_, who; _kataras_, which of two; _katama_, which of +many.--Lithuanic, _kas_, who; _koks_, of what sort; _kokelys_, how great; +_kaip_, how.--Slavonic: _kto_, who, Russian and Polish; _kdo_, who, +Bohemian; _kotory_, which, Russian; _kolik_, how great.--_Quot_, _qualis_, +_quantus_, Latin.--[Greek: Kosos], [Greek: koios], [Greek: kote], Ionic +Greek; in the other dialects, however, [Greek: poteros], [Greek: posos], +&c.--Gothic: _hvas_, who, Moeso-Gothic; _huer_, Old High German; _hvathar_, +which of two, Moeso-Gothic; _huedar_, Old High German; _hvem_, _hvad_, +_huanne_, _huar_, Norse; _what_, _why_, _which_, _where_, &c., English. + +Throughout the Indo-European tribe the demonstrative idea is expressed by +_t_, or by a modification of it; as, Sanskrit, _tat_, that; _tata-ras_, +such a one out of two.--Lithuanic, _tas_, he; _toks_, such; _tokelys_, so +great; _taip_, so.--Slavonic, _t'_ or {256} _ta_, he; _taku_, such; _tako_, +so.--_Tot_, _talis_, _tantum_, Latin.--[Greek: Tosos], [Greek: toios], +[Greek: tote], Greek; _this_, _that_, _thus_, English, &c. + +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_; in +Swedish the word is _hu_. + +s. 305. The following remarks (some of them not strictly etymological) +apply to a few of the remaining pronouns. For further details, see Grimm, +D. G. iii. 4. + +_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_, {257} _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.--Grimm, D. G. iii. 9. + +_Compound pronouns._--_Which_, as has been already stated more than once, +is most incorrectly called the neuter of _who_. Instead of being a neuter, +it is a compound word. The adjective _leiks_, _like_, is preserved in the +Moeso-Gothic words _galeiks_, and _missaleiks_. In Old High German the form +is _lih_, in Anglo-Saxon _lic_. Hence we have Moeso-Gothic, _hv[^e]leiks_; +Old High German, _huelih_; Anglo-Saxon, _huilic_ and _hvilc_; Old Frisian, +_hwelik_; Danish, _hvilk-en_; German, _welch_; Scotch, _whilk_; English, +_which_. (Grimm, D. G., iii. 47). The same is the case with-- + +1. _Such._--Moeso-Gothic, _svaleiks_; Old High German, _s[^o]lih_; Old +Saxon, _sul[^i]c_; Anglo-Saxon, _svilc_; German, _solch_; English, _such_. +(Grimm, D. G. iii. 48). Rask's derivation of the Anglo-Saxon _swilc_ from +_swa-ylc_, is exceptionable. + +2. _Thilk._--An old English word, found in the provincial dialects, as +_thick_, _thuck_, _theck_, and hastily derived by Tyrwhitt, {258} Ritson, +and Weber, from _se ylca_, is found in the following forms: Moeso-Gothic, +_th[^e]leiks_; Norse, _thvilikr_. (Grimm, iii. 49.) + +3. _Ilk._--Found in the Scotch, and always preceded by the article; _the +ilk_, or _that ilk_, meaning _the same_. In Anglo-Saxon this word is +_ylca_, preceded also by the article _se ylca_, _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. (Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 50.) + +_Aught._--In Moeso-Gothic is found the particle _aiv_, _ever_, but only in +negative propositions; _ni_ (_not_) preceding it. Its Old High German form +is _[^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. (Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 52.) + +_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,_[42] +must by no means be confounded with the word _ylce_, _the same_. (Grimm, D. +G. iii. 54.) + +_Every_, in Old English, _everich_, _everech_, _everilk one_, is _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_. + +_Other_, _whether_.--These words, although derived forms, being simpler +than some that have preceded, might fairly {259} 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 Sanskrit there are two forms, ^a) _kataras_, the same word as +_whether_, meaning _which out of two_; ^b) _katamas_, _which out of many_. +So also _[^e]kateras_, _one out of two_; _[^e]katamas_, _one out of many_. +In Greek, the Ionic form [Greek: koteros] ([Greek: 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 Sanskrit form _kataras_ corresponds with the comparative degree, +where there is the comparison of _two things with each other_; so the word +_katamas_ is a superlative form; and in the superlative degree lies the +comparison of _many_ things with each other. + +Hence _other_ and _whether_ (to which may be added _either_ and _neither_) +are pronouns with the comparative form. + +_Other_ has the additional peculiarity of possessing the plural form +_others_. Hence, like _self_, it is, in the strictest sense, a substantival +pronoun. + + * * * * * + + +{260} + +CHAPTER IX. + +ON CERTAIN FORMS IN -ER. + +s. 306. 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_, _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 {261} 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 forms _kataras_=_which of two persons?_ a comparative form; +_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_; +[Greek: hekastos]=_each or any out of more than two persons_. + +s. 307. 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_. + +An extension of the reasoning probably explains forms like the Greek +[Greek: ampho-ter-os], and the _plural_ possessive forms [Greek: +noi-ter-os], [Greek: heme-ter-os], &c, which, like our own forms in _-r_, +(_ou-r_, _you-r_) correspond in termination with the comparative degree +([Greek: sopho-ter-os], _wiser_). Words, also, like _hither_ and _thither_ +are instances of what is probably the effect of a similar association of +ideas. + +s. 308. A confirmation of Bopp's view is afforded by the Laplandic +languages. Herein the distinction between _one of two_ and _one of more +than two_ is expressed by affixes; and these affixes are the signs of the +comparative and superlative: _gi_=_who_; _gua-bba_=_who of two_; +_gutte-mush_=_who of many_. + +1. _Gi_=_who_, so that _guabba_ may be called its comparative form. + +2. _Gutte_ also=_who_, so that _guttemush_ may be called its superlative. + +3. Precisely as the words _guabba_ and _guttemush_ are formed, so also are +the regular degrees of adjectives. {262} + +_a._ _Nuorra_=_young_; _nuor-ab_=_younger_; _nuora-mush_=_youngest_. + +_b._ _Bahha_=_bad_; _baha-b_=_worse_; _baha-mush_=_worst_. + +The following extracts from Stockfleth's Lappish Grammar were probably +written without any reference to the Sanskrit or Greek. "_Guabba_, of which +the form and meaning are comparative, appears to have originated in a +combination of the pronoun _gi_, and the comparative affix +_-abbo_."--"_Guttemush_, of which the form and meaning are superlative, is +similarly derived from the pronoun _gutte_, and the superlative affix +_-mush_."--Grammatik i det Lappiske Sprog, ss. 192, 193. + +s. 309. _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. + + * * * * * + + +{263} + +CHAPTER X. + +THE COMPARATIVE DEGREE. + +s. 310. The proper preliminary to the study of the comparative and +quasi-comparative forms in English is the history of the inflection or +inflections by which they are expressed. There is no part of our grammar +where it is more necessary to extend our view beyond the common limit of +the Gothic stock of languages, than here. + +In the Sanskrit language the signs of the comparative degree are two:--1. +_-tara_, as _punya_=_pure_; _punya-tara_=_purer_; 2. _-[^i]yas_, as +_k['s]ipra_=_swift_; _k['s][^e]p[^i]yas_=_swifter_. Of these the first is +the most in use. + +The same forms occur in the Zend; as _husko_=_dry_; +_husk[^o]-tara_=_drier_; _-[^i]yas_, however, is changed into _-is_. + +In the classical languages we have the same forms. 1. in _uter_, _neuter_, +_alter_, [Greek: poteros], [Greek: leptoteros]. 2. In the adverb _magis_, +Lat. In Bohemian and Polish, _-ssj_ and _-szy_ correspond with the Sanskrit +forms _-[^i]yas_. + +Thus we collect, that, expressive of the comparative degree, there are two +parallel forms; _viz._, the form in _tr_, and the form in _s_; of which one +is the most in use in one language, and the other in another. + +s. 311. Before we consider the Gothic forms of the comparative, it may be +advisable to note two changes to which it is liable. 1. The change of _s_ +into _r_; the Latin word _meliorem_ being supposed to have been originally +_meliosem_, and the _s_ in _nigrius_, _firmius_, &c., being considered not +so much the sign of the neuter gender as the old comparative _s_ in its +oldest form. 2. The ejection of _t_, as in the Latin words _inferus_, +_superus_, compared with the Greek [Greek: leptoteros] (_leptoteros_). +{264} + +s. 312. Now, of the two parallel forms, the Gothic one was the form _s_; +the words _other_ and _whether_ only preserving the form _tr_. And here +comes the application of the remarks that have just gone before. The vast +majority of our comparatives end in _r_, and so seem to come from _tr_ +rather than from _s_. This, however, is not the case. The _r_ in words like +_sweeter_ is derived, not from _tar_--_t_, but from _s_, changed into _r_. +In Moeso-Gothic the comparative ended in _s_ (_z_); in Old High German the +_s_ has become _r_: Moeso-Gothic _aldiza_, _batiza_, _sutiza_; Old High +German, _altiro_, _betsiro_, _suatsiro_; English, _older_, _better_, +_sweeter_. + +The importance of a knowledge of the form in _s_ is appreciated when we +learn that, even in the present English, there are vestiges of it. + +s. 313. _Comparison of adverbs._--_The sun shines bright._--Herein the word +_bright_ means _brightly_; and although the use of the latter word would +have been the more elegant, the expression is not ungrammatical; the word +_bright_ being looked upon as an adjectival adverb. + +_The sun shines to-day brighter than it did yesterday, and to-morrow it +will shine brightest._--Here also the sense is adverbial; from whence we +get the fact, that adverbs take degrees of comparison. + +Now let the root _mag-_, as in _magnus_, [Greek: megas], and _mikil_ +(Norse), give the idea of greatness. In the Latin language we have from it +two comparative forms: 1. the adjectival comparative _major_=_greater_; 2. +the adverbial comparative _magis_=_more_ (_plus_). The same takes place in +Moeso-Gothic: _maiza_ means _greater_, and is adjectival; _mais_ means +_more_, and is adverbial. The Anglo-Saxon forms are more instructive still; +_e.g._, _thaes the m[^a]_=_all the more_, _thaes the bet_=_all the better_, +have a comparative sense, but not a comparative form, the sign _r_ being +absent. Now, compared with _major_, and subject to the remarks that have +gone before, the Latin _magis_ is the older form. With _m[^a]_ and _bet_, +compared with _more_ and _better_, this may or may not be the case. _M[^a]_ +and _bet_ may each be one of two forms; 1. a positive used in a comparative +sense; 2. a true comparative, which has lost {265} its termination. The +present section has been written not for the sake of exhausting the +subject, but to show that in the comparative degree there were often two +forms; of which one, the adverbial, was either more antiquated, or more +imperfect than the other: a fact bearing upon some of the forthcoming +trains of etymological reasoning. + +s. 314. _Change of vowel._--By reference to Rask's Grammar, s. 128, it may +be seen that in the Anglo-Saxon there were, for the comparative and +superlative degrees, two forms; _viz._ _-or_ and _-re_, and _-ost_ and +_-este_, respectively. + +By reference to p. 159 of the present volume, it may be seen that the +fulness or smallness of a vowel in a given syllable may work a change in +the nature of the vowel in a syllable adjoining. In the Anglo-Saxon the +following words exhibit a change of vowel. + + _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._ + +Of this change, the word last quoted is a still-existing specimen, as +_old_, _elder_ and _older_, _eldest_ and _oldest_. Between the two forms +there is a difference in meaning, _elder_ being used as a substantive, and +having a plural form, _elders_. + +s. 315. The previous section has stated that in Anglo-Saxon there were two +forms for the comparative and superlative degrees, one in _-re_ and +_-este_, the other in _-or_ and _-ost_, respectively. Now the first of +these was the form taken by adjectives; as _se scearpre sweord_=_the +sharper sword_, and _se scearpeste sweord_=_the sharpest sword_. The +second, on the other hand, was the form taken by adverbs; as, _se sweord +scyrdh scearpor_=_the sword cuts sharper_, and _se sweord scyrdh +scearpost_=_the sword cuts sharpest_. + +The adjectival form has, as seen above, a tendency to make the vowel of the +preceding syllable small: _old_, _elder_. {266} + +The adverbial form has a tendency to make the vowel of the preceding +syllable full. + +Of this effect on the part of the adverbial form the adverbial comparative +_rather_ is a specimen. We pronounce the _a_ as in _father_, or full. +Nevertheless, the positive form is small, the _a_ being pronounced as the +_a_ in _fate_. + +The word _rather_ means _quick_, _easy_=the classical root [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 +adverbial, and as such is properly sounded as the _a_ in _father_. + +The difference between the action of the small vowel in _-re_, and of the +full in _-or_, effects this difference. + +s. 316. _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. 317. _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. 318. _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 forms (or words) _thou_, _thy_, _thee_, are forms or words {267} +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. + +To return, however, to the word _better_; no absolute positive degree is +found in any of the allied languages, and in none of the allied languages +is there found any comparative form of _good_. Its root occurs in the +following adverbial forms: Moeso-Gothic, _bats_; Old High German, _pats_; +Old Saxon and Anglo-Saxon, _bet_; Middle High German, _baz_; Middle Dutch, +_bat_, _bet_.--Grimm, D. G. iii. 604. + +s. 319. _Worse._--Moeso-Gothic, _vairsiza_; Old High German, _wirsiro_; +Middle High German, _wirser_; Old Saxon, _wirso_; Anglo-Saxon, _vyrsa_; Old +Norse, _verri_; Danish, _vaerre_; and Swedish, _vaerre_. Such are the +adjectival forms. The adverbial forms are Moeso-Gothic, _vairs_; Old High +German, _virs_; Middle High German, _wirs_; Anglo-Saxon, _vyrs_: Old Norse, +_verr_; Danish, _vaerre_; Swedish, _vaerre_.--Grimm, D. G. iii. 606. +Whether the present form in English be originally adjectival or adverbial +is indifferent; since, as soon as the final _a_ of _vyrsa_ was omitted, the +two words would be the same. The forms, however, _vairsiza_, _wirser_, +_worse_, and _verri_, make the word one of the most perplexing in the +language. {268} + +If the form _worse_ be taken without respect to the rest, the view of the +matter is simply that in the termination _s_ we have a remnant of the +Moeso-Gothic forms, like _sutiza_, &c., in other words, the old comparative +in _s_. + +_Wirser_ and _vairsiza_ traverse this view. They indicate the likelihood of +the _s_ being no sign of the degree, but a part of the original word. +Otherwise the _r_ in _wirser_, and the _z_ in _vairsiza_, denote an excess +of expression. + +The analogies of _songstress_, _children_, and _betser[^o]ro_ show that +excess of expression frequently occurs. + +The analogy of _m[^a]_ and _bet_ show that _worse_ may possibly be a +positive form. + +The word _verri_ indicates the belief that the _s_ is no part of the root. + +Finally the euphonic processes of the Scandinavian languages tell us that, +even had there been an _s_, it would, in all probability, have been +ejected. These difficulties verify the statement that the word _worse_ is +one of the most perplexing in the language. + +s. 320. _Much_, _more_.--Here, although the words be unlike each other, +there is a true etymological relation. Moeso-Gothic, _mikils_; Old High +German, _mihhil_; Old Saxon, _mikil_; Anglo-Saxon, _mycel_; Old Norse, +_mickill_; Scotch, _muckle_ and _mickle_ (all ending in _l_): Danish, +_megen_, m.; _meget_, n.; Swedish, _mycken_, m.; _myckett_, n. (where no +_l_ is found). Such is the adjectival form of the positive, rarely found in +the Modern Gothic languages, being replaced in German by _gross_, in +English by _great_, in Danish by _stor_. The adverbial forms are _mioek_ +and _mioeg_, Norse; _much_, English. It is remarkable that this last form +is not found in Anglo-Saxon, being replaced by _s[^a]re_, Germ, +_sehr_.--Grimm, D. G. iii. 608. + +The adverbial and the Norse forms indicate that the _l_ is no part of the +original word. Comparison with other Indo-European languages gives us the +same circumstance: Sanskrit, _maha_; Latin, _mag-nus_; Greek, [Greek: +megas] (_megas_). + +There is in Moeso-Gothic the comparative form _m['a]iza_, and there is no +objection to presuming a longer form, _magiza_; since in the Greek form +[Greek: meizon], compared with [Greek: megas], there {269} is a similar +disappearance of the _g_. In the Old High German we find _m[^e]ro_, +corresponding with _m['a]iza_, Moeso-Gothic, and with _more_, English. + +_Mickle_ (replaced by _great_) expresses size; _much_, quantity; _many_, +number. The words _more_ and _most_ apply equally to number and quantity. I +am not prepared either to assert or to deny that _many_, in Anglo-Saxon +_maenig_, is from the same root with _much_. Of the word _m[^a]_ notice has +already been taken. Its later form, _moe_, occurs as late as Queen +Elizabeth, with an adjectival as well as an adverbial sense. + +s. 321. _Little_, _less_.--Like _much_ and _more_, these words are in an +etymological relation to each other. Moeso-Gothic, _leitils_; Old High +German, _luzil_; Old Saxon, _luttil_; Anglo-Saxon, _lytel_; Middle High +German, _luetzel_; Old Norse, _l[^i]till_. In these forms we have the +letter _l_. Old High German Provincial, _luz['i]c_; Old Frisian, _litich_; +Middle Dutch, _luttik_; Swedish, _liten_; Danish, _liden_.--Deutsche +Grammatik, iii. 611. From these we find that the _l_ is either no part of +the original word, or one that is easily got rid of. In Swedish and Danish +there are the forms _lille_ and _liden_; whilst in the neuter form, _lidt_, +the _d_ is unpronounced. Even the word _liden_ the Danes have a tendency to +pronounce _leen_. My own notion is that these changes leave it possible for +_less_ to be derived from the root of _little_. According to Grimm, the +Anglo-Saxon _laessa_ is the Gothic _lasiv[^o]za_, the comparative of +_lasivs_=_weak_.--Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 611. In Anglo-Saxon there was +the adjectival form _laessa_, and the adverbial form _laes_. In either case +we have the form _s_. + +s. 322. _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. The fact that in the English language the words +_father_ and _farther_ are, for the most part, pronounced alike, is the key +to the forms _near_ and _nearer_. {270} + +s. 323. _Farther._--Anglo-Saxon _feor_, _fyrre_, _fyrrest_. The _th_ seems +euphonic, inserted by the same process that gives the [delta] in [Greek: +andros]. + +_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. 324. _Former._--A comparative formed from the superlative; _forma_ being +such. Consequently, an instance of excess of expression, combined with +irregularity. + +Languages have a comparative without a superlative degree; no _language has +a superlative degree without having also a comparative one_. + +s. 325. 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 into the +Indo-European tongues after the establishment of the comparative, and +before the change of _-s_ into _-r_. I give no opinion as to the truth of +this theory. + + * * * * * + + +{271} + +CHAPTER XI. + +THE SUPERLATIVE DEGREE. + +s. 326. The history of the superlative form, accurately parallel with what +has been stated of the comparative, is as follows:-- + +In Sanskrit there is, 1. the form _tama_, 2. the form _ishta_; the first +being the commonest. The same is the case in the Zend. + +Each of these appears again in the Greek. The first, as [Greek: tat] +(_tat_), in [Greek: leptotatos] (_leptotatos_); the second, as [Greek: ist] +(_ist_), in [Greek: oiktistos] (_oiktistos_). For certain reasons, Grimm +thinks that the tat stands for _tamt_, or _tant_. + +In Latin, words like _intimus_, _extimus_, _ultimus_, preserve _im_; whilst +_venustus_, _vetustus_, and _robustus_, are considered as positives, +preserving the superlative form _-st_. + +Just as in _inferus_ and _nuperus_, there was the ejection of the _t_ in +the comparative _ter_, so in _infimus_, _nigerrimus_, &c., is there the +ejection of the same letter in the superlative _tim_. + +This gives us, as signs of the superlative, 1. _tm_; 2. _st_; 3. _m_, _t_ +being lost; 4. _t_, _m_ being lost. + +Of the first and last of these, there are amongst the _true_ superlatives, +in English, no specimens. + +Of the third, there is a specimen in the Anglo-Saxon _se forma_, _the +first_, from the root _fore_, as compared with the Latin _primus_, and the +Lithuanic _pirmas_. + +The second, _st_ (_wise_, _wisest_), is the current termination. + +Of the English superlatives, the only ones that demand a detailed +examination are those that are generally despatched without difficulty; +_viz._, the words in _most_; such as _midmost_, _foremost_, &c. The current +view is the one adopted by Rask in his Anglo-Saxon Grammar (s. 133), +_viz._, that they are {272} compound words, formed from simple ones by the +addition of the superlative term _most_. Grimm's view is opposed to this. +In appreciating Grimm's view, we must bear in mind the phenomena of _excess +of expression_; at the same time we must not depart from the current theory +without duly considering the fact stated by Rask; which is, that we have in +Icelandic the forms _naermeir_, _fjaermeir_, &c., _nearer_, and _farther_, +most unequivocally compounded of _near_ and _more_, and of _far_ and +_more_. + +Let especial notice be taken of the Moeso-Gothic forms _fruma_, first; +_aftuma_, last; and of the Anglo-Saxon forms _forma_, _aftema_, aftermost; +_ufema_, upmost; _hindema_, hindmost; _midema_, midmost; _innema_, inmost; +_[^u]tema_, outmost; _sidhema_, last; _latema_, last; _nidhema_, +nethermost. These account for the _m_. + +Add to this, with an excess of expression, the letters _st_. This accounts +for the whole form, as _mid-m-ost_, _in-m-ost_, &c. Such is Grimm's view. + +_Furthermost_, _innermost_, _hindermost_.--Here there is a true addition of +_most_, and an excess of inflection, a superlative form being added to a +word in the comparative degree. + +_Former._--Here, as stated before, a comparative sign is added to a word in +the superlative degree. + +s. 327. The combination _st_ occurs in other words besides those of the +superlative degree; amongst others, in certain adverbs and prepositions, as +_among_, _amongst_; _while_, _whilst_; _between_, _betwixt_.--Its power +here has not been well explained. + + * * * * * + + +{273} + +CHAPTER XII. + +OF THE CARDINAL NUMBERS. + +s. 328. In one sense the cardinal numbers form no part of a work on +etymology. They are single words, apparently simple, and, as such, +appertaining to a dictionary rather than to a grammar. + +In another sense they are strictly etymological. They are the basis of the +ordinals, which are formed from them by derivation. Furthermore, some of +them either have, or are supposed to have, certain peculiarities of form +which can be accounted for only by considering them derivatives, and that +of a very peculiar kind. + +s. 329. It is an ethnological fact, that the numerals are essentially the +same throughout the whole Indo-European class of languages. The English +_three_ is the Latin _tres_, the Sanskrit _tri_, &c. In the Indo-European +languages the numerals agree, even when many common terms differ. + +And it is also an ethnological fact, that in a great many other groups of +languages the numerals differ, even when many of the common terms agree. +This is the case with many of the African and American dialects. Languages +alike in the common terms for common objects differ in respect to the +numerals. + +What is the reason for this inconsistency in the similarity or +dissimilarity of the numerals as compared with the similarity or +dissimilarity of other words? I believe that the following distinction +leads the way to it:-- + +The word _two_=2, absolutely and unequivocally, and in a primary manner. + +The word _pair_ also=2; but not absolutely, not unequivocally, and only in +a secondary manner. {274} + +Hence the distinction between absolute terms expressive of number, and +secondary terms expressive of number. + +When languages separate from a common stock before the use of certain words +is fixed as _absolute_, there is room for considerable latitude in the +choice of numerals; _e.g._, whilst with one tribe the word _pair_=_two_, +another tribe may use the word _couple_, a third _brace_, and so on. In +this case dialects that agree in other respects may differ in respect to +their numerals. + +When, on the other hand, languages separate from a common stock after the +meaning of such a word as _two_ has been fixed absolutely, there is no room +for latitude; and the numerals agree where the remainder of the language +differs. + +1. _One_=_unus_, Latin; [Greek: heis] ([Greek: hen]), Greek. + +2. _Two_=_duo_, [Greek: duo]. + +3. _Three_=_tres_, [Greek: treis]. + +4. _Four_=_quatuor_, [Greek: tettara]. This is apparently problematical. +Nevertheless, the assumed changes can be verified by the following forms:-- + +[alpha]. _Fidvor_, Moeso-Gothic. To be compared with _quatuor_. + +[beta]. [Greek: Pisures], Aeolic. Illustrates the change between [tau]- and +[pi]- (allied to _f-_), within the pale of the classical languages. + +5. _Five_=_quinque_, [Greek: pente]. Verified by the following forms:-- + +[alpha]. [Greek: Pempe], Aeolic Greek. + +[beta]. _Pump_, Welsh. These account for the change from the _n_ + _t_ in +[Greek: pente] to _m_ + _p_. + +[gamma]. _Fimf_, Moeso-Gothic; _fuenf_, Modern High German. + +[delta]. _Fem_, Norse. + +The change from the [pi]- of [Greek: pente] to the _qu-_ of _quinque_ is +the change so often quoted by Latin and Celtic scholars between _p_ and +_k_: [Greek: hippos], [Greek: hikkos], _equus_. + +6. _Six_=[Greek: hex], _sex_. + +7. _Seven_=[Greek: hepta], _septem_. + +This form is difficult. The Moeso-Gothic form is _sibun_, without a _-t-_; +the Norse, _syv_, without either _-t-_ or _-n_ (=_-m_). A doubtful +explanation of the form _seven_, &c., will be found in the following +chapter. {275} + +8. _Eight_=[Greek: okto], _octo_. + +9. _Nine_=[Greek: ennea], _novem_. The Moeso-Gothic form is _nigun_, the +Icelandic _niu_. In the Latin _novem_ the _v_=the _g_ of _nigun_. In the +English and Greek it is wanting. The explanation of the _-n_ and _-m_ will +be found in the following chapter. + +10. _Ten_=[Greek: deka], _decem_. The Moeso-Gothic form is _tihun_; wherein +the _h_=the _c_ of _decem_ and the [kappa] of [Greek: deka]. The Icelandic +form is _tiu_, and, like [Greek: deka], is without the _-n_ (or _-m_). The +hypothesis as to the _-m_ or _-n_ will be given in the next chapter. + +11. _Eleven._ By no means the equivalent to _undecim_=1 + 10. + +[alpha]. The _e_ is _ein_=_one_. _Ein_lif, _ein_-lef, _ei_lef, _ei_lf, +_e_lf, Old High German; _and_lova, Old Frisian; _end_-leofan, _end_lufan, +Anglo-Saxon. This is universally admitted. + +[beta]. The _-lev-_ is a modification of the root _laib-an_=_manere_=_to +stay_=_to be over_. Hence _eleven_=_one over_ (_ten_). This is _not_ +universally admitted. + +[gamma]. The _-n_ has not been well accounted for. It is peculiar to the +Low Germanic dialects.--Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 946. + +12. _Twelve_=the root _two_ + the root _laib_=_two over_ (_ten_). _Tvalif_, +Moeso-Gothic; _zuelif_, Old High German; _toll_, Swedish. The same doubts +that apply to the doctrine of the _-lv-_ in _eleven_ representing the root +_-laib_, apply to the _-lv-_ in _twelve_.--Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 946. + +13. _Thirteen_=3 + 10. So on till twenty. + +30. _Thirty_=3 x 10, or three decads. This difference in the decimal power +of the syllables _-teen_ and _-ty_ is illustrated by-- + +[alpha]. The Moeso-Gothic.--Here we find the root _tig-_ used as a true +substantive, equivalent in form as well as power to the Greek [Greek: +dek-as]. _Tv['a]im tigum thusandjom_=_duobus decadibus myriadum_. (Luke +xiv. 31.) _J[^e]r[^e] thrij[^e] tigiv['e]_=_annorum duarum decadum._ (Luke +iii. 23.) _thrins tiguns silubrinaize_=_tres decadas argenteorum._ (Matthew +xxvii. 3, 9.)--Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 948. {276} + +[beta]. The Icelandic.--"The numbers from 20 to 100 are formed by means of +the numeral substantive, _tigr_, declined like _vidhr_, and naturally +taking the word which it numerically determines in the genitive case. + + _Nom._ Fj['o]rir tigir manna = _four tens of men_. + _Gen._ Fjoegurra tiga manna = _of four tens of men_. + _Dat._ Fj['o]rum tigum manna = _to four tens of men_. + _Acc._ Fj['o]ra tiga manna = _four tens of men_. + +"This is the form of the inflection in the best and oldest MSS. A little +later was adopted the _indeclinable_ form _tigi_, which was used +adjectivally."--Det Oldnorske Sprogs Grammatik, af P. A. Munch, og C. B. +Unger, Christiania, 1847. + +s. 330. Generally speaking, the greater part of the numerals are +undeclined, even in inflected languages. 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 cases, there is no reason why all the +numerals should not be as fully inflected as the Latin _unus_, _una_, +_unum_, _unius_. + + * * * * * + + +{277} + +CHAPTER XIII. + +ON THE ORDINAL NUMBERS. + +s. 331. The remarks at the close of the last chapter but one indicated the +fact that superlative forms were found beyond the superlative degree. The +present chapter shows that they are certainly found in some, and possibly +in all of the ordinal numbers. + +_First._--In Moeso-Gothic, _fruma_, _frumist_; in Anglo-Saxon, _forma_, +_fyrmest_; in Old High German, _vurist_; in Old Norse, _fyrst_; in New High +German, _erst_. In all these words, whether in _m_, in _mst_, or in _st_, +there is a superlative form. The same is the case with _pratamas_, +Sanskrit; _fratemas_, Zend; [Greek: protos], Greek; _primus_, Latin; +_primas_, Lithuanic. Considering that, _compared with the other ordinals_, +the ordinal of _one_ is a sort of superlative, this is not at all +surprising. + +Between the words _one_ and _first_ there is no etymological relation. This +is the case in most languages. _Unus_, _primus_, [Greek: heis], [Greek: +protos], &c. + +s. 332. _Second._--Between this word and its cardinal, _two_, there is no +etymological connexion. This is the case in many, if not in most, +languages. In Latin the cardinal is _duo_, and the ordinal _secundus_, a +gerund of _sequor_, and meaning _the following_. In Anglo-Saxon the form +was _se odher_=_the other_. In the present German, the ordinal is _zweite_, +a word etymologically connected with the cardinal _zwei_=_two_. + +Old High German, _andar_; Old Saxon, _othar_; Old Frisian, _other_; Middle +Dutch, _ander_. In all these words we have the comparative form _-ter_; and +considering that, _compared with the word first_, the word _second_ is a +sort of {278} comparative, there is nothing in the circumstance to surprise +us. The Greek forms [Greek: deuteros] and [Greek: heteros], the Latin +_alter_, and the Lithuanic _antras_, are the same. + +s. 333. With the third ordinal number begin difficulties: 1. in respect to +their form; 2. in respect to the idea conveyed by them. + +1. Comparing _third_, _fourth_, _fifth_, &c., with _three_, _four_, and +_five_, the formation of the ordinal from the cardinal form may seem simply +to consist in the addition of _d_ or _th_. Such, however, is far from being +the case. + +2. Arguing from the nature of the first two ordinals, namely, the words +_first_ and _second_, of which one has been called a superlative and the +other a comparative, it may seem a simple matter to associate, in regard to +the rest, the idea of ordinalism with the idea of comparison. A plain +distinction, however, will show that the case of the first two ordinals is +peculiar. _First_ is a superlative, not as compared with its cardinal, +_one_, but as compared with the other numerals. _Second_, or _other_, is a +comparative, not as compared with its cardinal, _two_, but as compared with +the numeral _one_. Now it is very evident, that, if the other ordinals be +either comparatives or superlatives, they must be so, not as compared with +one another, but as compared with their respective cardinals. _Sixth_, to +be anything like a superlative, must be so when compared with _six_. + +s. 334. Now there are, in etymology, two ways of determining the affinity +of ideas. The first is the metaphysical, the second the empirical, method. + +_This is better than that_, is a sentence which the pure metaphysician may +deal with. He may first determine that there is in it the idea of +comparison; and next that the comparison is the comparison between _two_ +objects, and no more than two. This idea he may compare with others. He may +determine, that, with a sentence like _this is one and that is the other_, +it has something in common; since both assert something concerning _one out +of two objects_. Upon this connexion in sense he is at liberty to reason. +He is at liberty to conceive that in certain languages words expressive +{279} of allied ideas may also be allied in form. Whether such be really +the case, he leaves to etymologists to decide. + +The pure etymologist proceeds differently. He assumes the connexion in +meaning from the connexion in form. All that he at first observes is, that +words like _other_ and _better_ have one and the same termination. For this +identity he attempts to give a reason, and finds that he can best account +for it by presuming some affinity in sense. Whether there be such an +affinity, he leaves to the metaphysician to decide. This is the empirical +method. + +At times the two methods coincide, and ideas evidently allied are expressed +by forms evidently allied. + +At times the connexion between the ideas is evident; but the connexion +between the forms obscure: and _vice vers[^a]_. Oftener, however, the case +is as it is with the subjects of the present chapter. Are the ideas of +ordinalism in number, and of superlativeness in degree, allied? The +metaphysical view, taken by itself, gives us but unsatisfactory evidence; +whilst the empirical view, taken by itself, does the same. The two views, +however, taken together, give us evidence of the kind called cumulative, +which is weak or strong according to its degree. + +Compared with _three_, _four_, &c., all the ordinals are formed by the +addition of _th_, or _t_; and _th_, _dh_, _t_, or _d_, is the ordinal sign, +not only in English, but in the other Gothic languages. But, as stated +before, this is not the whole of the question. + +The letter _t_ is found, with a similar power, 1. In Latin, as in +_tertius_, _quartus_, _quintus_, _sextus_; 2. Greek, as in [Greek: tritos] +(_tritos_), [Greek: tetartos] (_tetartos_), [Greek: pemptos] (_pemptos_), +[Greek: hektos] (_hectos_), [Greek: ennatos] (_ennatos_), [Greek: dekatos] +(_dekatos_); 3. Sanskrit, as in _tritiyas_, _['c]atu['r]tas_, +_shasht'as_=_third_, _fourth_, _sixth_; 4. In Zend, as in _thrityas_=_the +third_, _haptathas_=_the seventh_; 5. In Lithuanic, as +_ketwirtas_=_fourth_, _penktas_=_fifth_, _szesztas_=_sixth_; 6. In Old +Slavonic, as in _c['e]tvertyi_=_fourth_, _pjatyi_=_fifth_, +_shestyi_=_sixth_, _devjatyi_=_ninth_, _desjatyi_=_tenth_. Speaking more +generally, it is found, with a similar force, throughout the Indo-European +stock. + +The following forms indicate a fresh train of reasoning. {280} The Greek +[Greek: hepta] (_hepta_), and Icelandic _sjau_, have been compared with the +Latin _septem_ and the Anglo-Saxon _seofon_. In the Greek and Icelandic +there is the absence, in the Latin and Anglo-Saxon the presence, of a final +liquid (_m_ or _n_). + +Again, the Greek forms [Greek: ennea] (_ennea_), and the Icelandic +_n['i]u_=_nine_, have been compared with the Latin _novem_ and the Gothic +_nigun_. + +Thirdly, the Greek [Greek: deka] (_deka_), and the Icelandic _t['i]u_, have +been compared with the Latin _decem_ and the Gothic _tihun_=_ten_. + +These three examples indicate the same circumstance; _viz._ that the _m_ or +_n_, in _seven_, _nine_, and _ten_, is no part of the original word. + +s. 335. The following hypotheses account for these phenomena; _viz._ that +the termination of the ordinals is the superlative termination _-tam_: that +in some words, like the Latin _septimus,_ the whole form is preserved; that +in some, as in [Greek: tetartos]=_fourth_, the _t_ only remains; and that +in others, as in _decimus_, the _m_ alone remains. Finally, that in +_seven_, _nine_, and _ten_, the final liquid, although now belonging to the +cardinal, was once the characteristic of the ordinal number. For a fuller +exhibition of these views, see Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 640. + + * * * * * + + +{281} + +CHAPTER XIV. + +THE ARTICLES. + +s. 336. 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 Latin 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, as it is very evident that, as far as the sense is concerned, the +words _some man_, _a certain man_, and _a man_, are, there or thereabouts, +the same, an exception may be taken to the statement that in Greek and +Moeso-Gothic there is no indefinite article. It may, in the present state +of the argument, be fairly said that the words _sum_ and [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_; {282} 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 the 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. + + * * * * * + + +{283} + +CHAPTER XV. + +DIMINUTIVES, AUGMENTATIVES, AND PATRONYMICS. + +s. 337. 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. The word _clean_ in English, means, in +German, _little_=_kleine_. The feeling of protection which is extended to +small objects engenders the notion of endearment. In Middle High German we +have _vaterl[`i]n_=_little father_, _muetterl[`i]n_=_little mother_. In +Middle High German there is the diminutive _sunnel[`i]n_; and the French +_soleil_ is from the Latin form _solillus_. In Slavonic the word +_slunze_=_sun_ is a diminutive form. + +The Greek word [Greek: meiosis] (_mei[^o]sis_) means diminution; the Greek +word [Greek: hupokorisma] means an endearing expression. Hence we get names +for the two kinds of diminutives; _viz._, the term _meiotic_ for the true +diminutives, and the term _hypocoristic_ for the diminutives of +endearment.--Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 664. {284} + +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. 338. 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.--Deutsche Grammatik, +iii. 686. + +_Ock._--_Bullock_, _hillock_. + +_Kin._--_Lambkin_, _mannikin_, _ladikin_, &c. As is seen above, common in +proper names. + +_En._--_Chicken_, _kitten_, from _cock_, _cat_. The notion of diminution, +if indeed that be the notion originally conveyed, lies not in the _-en_, +but in the vowel. In the word _chicken_, from _cock_, observe the effect of +the small vowel on the c. + +The consideration of words like _duckling_ and _gosling_ is purposely +deferred. + +The chief diminutive of classical origin is-- + +_Et_, as in _trumpet_, _lancet_, _pocket_; the word _pock_, as in +_meal-pock_=_a meal-bag_, being found in the Scottish. From the French +_-ette_, as in _caissette_, _poulette_. + +The forms _-rel_, as in _cockerel_, _pickerel_, and _-let_, as in +_streamlet_, require a separate consideration. The first has nothing to do +with the Italian forms _acquerella_ and _coserella_--themselves, perhaps, +of Gothic, rather than of classical origin. + +In the Old High-German there are a multitude of diminutive forms in _-l_; +as _ouga_=_an eye_, _ougili_=_a little eye_, _lied_=_a song_, _liedel_=_a +little song_. "In Austria and Bavaria {285} are the forms _mannel_, +_weibel_, _hundel_, &c., or _mannl_, _weibl_, _hundl_, &c. In some +districts there is an _r_ before the _l_, as _madarl_=_a little maid_, +_muadarl_=_a little mother_, _briadarl_=_a little brother_, &c. This is +occasioned by the false analogy of the diminutives of the derived form in +_r_."--Deutsche Grammatik, iii. p. 674. 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 _-l_, so common in the High +Germanic dialects. _Wolfer_=_a wolf_, _hunker_=_a haunch_, _flitcher_=_a +flitch_, _teamer_=_a team_, _fresher_=_a frog_,--these are north country +forms of the present English.[43] + +The termination _-let_, as in _streamlet_, seems to be double, and to +consist of the Gothic diminutive _-l_, and the French diminutive _-t_. + +s. 339. _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 {286} the modern +languages of classical origin: French, _vieillard_; Spanish, _codardo_. +From these we get at, second-hand, the word _coward_.--Deutsche Grammatik, +iii. 707. + +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. 340. _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_, or +Gaelic _MacDonald_. 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? It was for the +sake of this question that the consideration of the termination _-ling_, as +in _duckling_, &c., was deferred. + +The termination _-ling_, like the terminations _-rel_ and _-let_, is +compound. Its simpler form is _-ing_. This, from being affixed to the +derived forms in _-l_, has become _-ling_. + +In Anglo-Saxon the termination _-ing_ is as truly patronymic as [Greek: +-ides] is in Greek. In the Bible-translation the son of Elisha is called +_Elising_. In the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle occur such genealogies as the +following:--_Ida waes Eopping, Eoppa [^E]sing, [^E]sa 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 Esing, Esing of Inga, Inga of Angenvit, {287} Angenvit of Aloc, Aloc of +Beonoc, Beonoc of Brand, Brand of Baeldag, Baeldag 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. The primary of _-ing_ and _-l-ing_ +is descent or relationship; from these comes the idea of youth and +endearment, and thence the true diminutive idea. In _darling_, _stripling_, +_duckling_, _gosling_ (pr. _gesling_), _kitling_ (pr. for _kitten_), +_nestling_, _yearling_, _chickling_, _fatling_, _fledgling_, _firstling_, +the idea of descent still remains. In _hireling_ the idea of diminution is +accompanied with the idea of contempt. In _changeling_ we have a Gothic +termination and a classical root. See, for the full exposition of this +view, Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 349-364, iii. 682. + +In the opening speech of Marlow's Jew of Malta we have the following +lines:-- + + Here have I pursed their paltry _silverlings_. + Fie! what a trouble 'tis to count this trash! + Well fare the Arabs, that so richly pay + For what they traffick in with wedge of gold. + +The word _silverlings_ has troubled the commentators. _Burst their +silverbins_ has been proposed as the true reading. The word, however, is a +true diminutive, as _siluparlinc_, _silarbarling_=_a small silver coin_, +Old High German. + +A good chapter on the English diminutives may be seen in the Cambridge +Philological Museum, vol. i. p. 679. + + * * * * * + + +{288} + +CHAPTER XVI. + +GENTILE FORMS. + +s. 341. These have been illustrated by Mr. Guest in the Transactions of the +Philological Society. + +The only word in the present English that requires explanation is the name +of the principality _Wales_. + +1. The form is plural, however much the meaning may be singular; so that +the _-s_ in _Wale-s_ is the _-s_ in _fathers_, &c. + +2. It has grown out of the Anglo-Saxon from _wealhas_=_foreigners_, the +name by which the Welsh are spoken of by the Germans of England, just as +the Italians are called Welsh by the Germans of Germany: +_wal-nuts_=_foreign nuts_. + +3. The transfer of the name of the _people_ inhabiting a certain country to +the _country_ so inhabited, was one of the commonest processes in both +Anglo-Saxon and Old English.--Guest, Phil. Trans. + + * * * * * + + +{289} + +CHAPTER XVII. + +ON THE CONNEXION BETWEEN THE NOUN AND VERB, AND ON THE INFLECTION OF THE +INFINITIVE MOOD. + +s. 342. 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 +position. On the other hand, however, it expresses what no noun ever does +or can express; _e.g._, the relation of the agent to the individual +speaking, by means of person; the time in which acts take place, by means +of tense; and the conditions of their occurrence, by means of mood. + +The idea of number is the only one that, on a superficial view, is common +to these two important parts of speech. + +Logically, the contrast is inconsiderable. A noun denotes an object of +which either the senses or the intellect can take cognizance, and a verb +does no more. _To move_=_motion_, _to rise_=_rising_, _to err_=_error_, _to +forgive_=_forgiveness_. The only difference between the two parts of speech +is this, that, whereas a noun may express any object whatever, verbs can +only express those objects which consist in an action. And it is this +superadded idea of action that superadds to the verb the phenomena of +tense, mood, person, and voice; in other words, the phenomena of +conjugation. + +s. 343. A noun is a word capable of declension only. A {290} 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 infinite mood the declension of a noun +substantive. Gerunds and supines, in languages where they occur, are only +names for certain cases of the verb. + +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_. + +oftener than the Romans. The fact of there being an article in Greek may +account for this. + +s. 344. Returning, however, to the illustration of the substantival +character of the so-called infinitive mood, we may easily see-- + +[alpha]. 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_. + +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. + +s. 345. The inflection of the verb in its impersonal (or {291} infinitive +form) consisted, in full, of three cases, a nominative (or accusative), a +dative, and a genitive. The genitive is put last, because its occurrence in +the Gothic language is the least constant. + +In Anglo-Saxon the nominative (or accusative) ended in -an: + + Lufian =_to love_=_amare_. + Baernan=_to burn_=_urere_. + Syllan =_to give_=_dare_. + +Be it observed, that the _-en_ in words like _strengthen_, &c., is a +derivational termination, and by no means a representation of the +Anglo-Saxon infinitive inflection. The Anglo-Saxon infinitive inflection is +lost in the present English, except in certain provincial dialects. + +In Anglo-Saxon the dative of the infinitive verb ended in _-nne_, and was +(as a matter of syntax) generally, perhaps always, preceded by the +preposition _to_. + + 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. 346. 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 in _-nne_. + +Expressions like _to err_=_error_, _to forgive_=_forgiveness_, in lines +like + + To err is human, to forgive divine, + +are very remarkable. They exhibit the phenomena of a nominative case having +grown not only out of a dative but out of a dative _plus_ its governing +preposition. + + * * * * * + + +{292} + +CHAPTER XVIII. + +ON DERIVED VERBS. + +s. 347. Of number, person, mood, tense, and conjugation, special notice is +taken in their respective chapters. 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 it +has been already remarked that the _-en_ is a derivational affix; and not a +representative of the Anglo-Saxon infinitive form _-an_ (as _lufian_, +_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. The +following list is taken from the Cambridge Philological Museum, ii. 386. + + _Intrans. Infinitive._ _Trans. Infinitive._ + Yrnan, _to run_ Aernan, _to make to run_. + Byrnan, _to burn_ Baernan, _to make to burn_. + {293} + 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 awaken_. + +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 +_fell_, _fell'd_. + +III. Verbs derived from nouns by a change of accent; as _to surv['e]y_, +from a _s['u]rvey_. For a fuller list see the Chapter on Derivation. Walker +attributes the change of accent to the influence of the participial +termination _-ing_. All words thus affected are of foreign origin. + +IV. Verbs formed from nouns by changing a final sharp consonant into its +corresponding flat one; as, + + _The_ use _to_ use, _pronounced_ uze. + _The_ breath _to_ breathe -- breadhe. + _The_ cloth _to_ clothe -- clodhe. + + * * * * * + + +{294} + +CHAPTER XIX. + +ON THE PERSONS. + +s. 348. 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_. [44]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 of _voco_ marked in italics there is, in +the current English, nothing correspondent. + +In the word _am_, as compared with _are_ and _art_, we find a sign of the +first person singular. + +In the old forms _tellen_, _weren_, &c., we have a sign of the plural +number. + +In the Modern English, the Old English, and the Anglo-Saxon, the +peculiarities of our personal inflections are very great. This may be seen +from the following tables of comparison:-- + + _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. S[^o]kjand. + + {295} + _Old High German._ + _Singular._ Prennu. Prenn[^i]s. Prennit--_burn._ + _Plural._ Prennames. Prennat. Prennant. + + _Icelandic._ + _Singular._ Kalla. Kallar. Kallar--_call._ + _Plural._ Koellum. 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. + +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. + +4. The respective powers of M in the first, of S in the second, and of T +(or its allied sounds) in the third persons singular; {296} of MES in the +first, of T (or its allied sounds) in the second, and of ND in the third +persons plural. In this we have a regular expression of the persons by +means of regular signs; and this the history of the personal terminations +verifies. + +s. 349. _First person singular._--That the original sign of this person was +M we learn from the following forms: _dad[^a]mi_, Sanskrit; _dadh[^a]mi_, +Zend; _[Greek: didomi]_, Greek; _dumi_, Lithuanic; _damy_, Slavonic=_I +give_. The Latin language preserves it in _sum_ and _inquam_, and in the +first persons of tenses, like _legam_, _legebam_, _legerem_, _legissem_. +The form _im_=_I am_ occurs in Moeso-Gothic; and the words _stom_=_I +stand_, _lirnem_=_I shall learn_, in Old High German. The word _am_ is a +fragmentary specimen of it in our own language. + +_Plural._--The original sign MES. _Dadmas_, Sanskrit; _[Greek: didomes]_, +afterwards _[Greek: didomen]_, Greek; _damus_, Latin=_we give_. The current +form in Old High German. + +These forms in M may or may not be derived from the pronoun of the first +person; _m[^a]_, Sanskrit; _me_, Latin, English, &c. + +_Second person singular._--The original sign S. _Dadasi_, Sanskrit; [Greek: +didos], Greek; _das_, Latin; _dasi_, Slavonic. Preserved in the Gothic +languages. + +_Plural._--The original sign T, or an allied sound. _Dadyata_, Sanskrit; +_daidhy[^a]ta_, Zend; [Greek: didote], Greek; _datis_, Latin; _d[ou]kite_, +Lithuanic; _dashdite_, Slavonic=_ye give_. Current in the Gothic languages. + +These forms in T and S may or may not be derived from the pronoun of the +second person; _tva_, Sanskrit; [Greek: su], Greek; _thou_, English. + +_Third person singular._---The original sign T. _Dadati_, Sanskrit; +_dadh[^a]iti_, Zend; [Greek: didoti], Old Greek; _dat_, Latin; _d[ou]sti_, +Lithuanic; _dasty_, Slavonic=_he gives_. Preserved in the Gothic languages. + +_Plural._--The original sign NT. _Dadenti_, Zend; [Greek: didonti], +afterwards [Greek: didousi], Greek; _dant_, Latin=_they give_. In +Moeso-Gothic and Old High German. + +The preceding examples are from Grimm and Bopp. To them add the Welsh form +_carant_=_they love_, and the Persian _budend_=_they are_. {297} + +The forms in T and NT may or may not be derived from the demonstrative +pronoun _ta_, Saxon; [Greek: to], Greek; _that_, English, &c. + +s. 350. The present state of the personal inflection in English, so +different from that of the older languages, has been brought about by two +processes. + +I. _Change of form._--^a) The ejection of _-es_ in _-mes_, as in +_s[^o]kjam_ and _koellum_, compared with _prennames_; ^b) the ejection of +_-m_, as in the first person singular, almost throughout; ^c) the change of +_-s_ into _-r_, as in the Norse _kallar_, compared with the Germanic +_s[^o]keis_; ^d) the ejection of _-d_ from _-nd_, as in _loven_ (if this be +the true explanation of that form) compared with _prennant_; ^e) the +ejection of _-nd_, as in _kalla_; ^f) the addition of _-t_, as in _lufast_ +and _lovest_. In all these cases we have a change of form. + +II. _Confusion or extension._--In vulgarisms like _I goes_, _I is_, one +person is used instead of another. In vulgarisms like _I are_, _we goes_, +one number is used instead of another. In vulgarisms like _I be tired_, or +_if I am tired_, one mood is used instead of another. In vulgarisms like _I +give_ for _I gave_, one tense is used for another. In all this there is +confusion. There is also extension: since, in the phrase _I is_, the third +person is used instead of the first; in other words, it is used with an +extension of its natural meaning. It has the power of the third person + +that of the first. In the course of time one person may entirely supplant, +supersede, or replace another. The application of this is as follows:-- + +The only person of the plural number originally ending in dh is the second; +as _s['o]keith_, _prennat_, _kallith_, _lufiadh_; the original ending of +the first person being _-mes_, or _-m_, as _prennames_, _s[^o]kjam_, +_koellum_. Now, in Anglo-Saxon, the _first_ person ends in dh, as +_lufiadh_. Has _-m_, or _-mes_, changed to dh, or has the second person +superseded the first? The latter alternative seems the likelier. + +s. 351. The detail of the persons seems to be as follows:-- + +_I call_, first person singular.--The word _call_ is not one person more +than another. It is the simple verb, wholly uninflected. It is very +probable that the first person was the {298} one where the characteristic +termination was first lost. In the Modern Norse language it is replaced by +the second: _Jeg taler_=_I speak_, Danish. + +_Thou callest_, second person singular.--The final _-t_ appears throughout +the Anglo-Saxon, although wanting in Old Saxon. In Old High German it +begins to appear in Otfrid, and is general in Notker. In Middle High German +and New High German it is universal.--Deutsche Grammatik, i. 1041. 857. + +_He calleth_, or _he calls_, third person singular.--The _-s_ in _calls_ is +the _-th_ in _calleth_, changed. The Norse form _kallar_ either derives its +_-r_ from the _-th_ by way of change, or else the form is that of the +second person replacing the first. + +_Lufiadh_, Anglo-Saxon, first person plural.--The second person in the +place of the first. The same in Old Saxon. + +_Lufiadh_, Anglo-Saxon, third person plural.--Possibly changed from -ND, as +in _s[^o]kjand_. More probably the second person. + +_Loven_, Old English.--For all the persons of the plural. This form may be +accounted for in three ways: 1. The _-m_ of the Moeso-Gothic and High Old +German became _-n_; as it is in the Middle and Modern German, where all +traces of the original _-m_ are lost. In this case the first person has +replaced the other two. 2. The _-nd_ may have become _-n_; in which case it +is the third person that replaces the others. 3. The indicative form +_loven_ may have arisen out of a subjunctive one; since there was in +Anglo-Saxon the form _lufion_, or _lufian_, subjunctive. In the Modern +Norse languages the third person replaces the other two: _Vi tale_, _I +tale_, _de tale_=_we talk_, _ye talk_, _they talk_. + +s. 352. _The person in_ -T.--_Art_, _wast_, _wert_, _shalt_, _wilt_. Here +the second person singular ends, not in _-st_, but in _-t_. A reason for +this (though not wholly satisfactory) we find 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_ {299} _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. 353. _Thou spakest, thou brakest, thou sungest._[45]--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. 354. 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_. + + * * * * * + + +{300} + +CHAPTER XX. + +ON THE NUMBERS OF VERBS. + +s. 355. The inflection of the present tense, not only in Anglo-Saxon, but +in several other languages as well, has been given in the preceding +chapter. As compared with the present plural forms, _we love_, _ye love_, +_they love_, both the Anglo-Saxon _we lufiadh_, _ge lufiadh_, _hi lufiadh_, +and the Old English _we loven_, _ye loven_, _they loven_, have a peculiar +termination for the plural number which the present language wants. 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. + +The word _personal_ is printed in italics. It does not follow, that, +because there is no plural _personal_ characteristic, there is also no +plural characteristic. + +There is no reason against the inflection of the word _love_ running +thus--_I love_, _thou lovest_, _he loves_; _we lave_, _ye lave_, _they +lave_; in other words, there is no reason against the vowel of the root +being changed with the number. In such a case there would be no _personal_ +inflection, though there would be a plural, or a _numeral_, inflection. + +Now, in Anglo-Saxon, with a great number of verbs such a plural inflection +not only actually takes place, but takes place most regularly. It takes +place, however, in the past tense only. And this is the case in all the +Gothic languages as well as in Anglo-Saxon. Amongst the rest, in-- + +_Moeso-Gothic._ + + 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 ate_; ['e]tum, _we ate_. + Stal, _I stole_; st[^e]lum, _we stole_. + Qvam, _I came_; qv[^e]mum, _we came_. + +{301} + +_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_; swungon, _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_. + +In all the Anglo-Saxon words, it may be remarked that the change is from +_a_ to _u_, and that both the vowels are short, or dependent. Also, that +the vowel of the present tense is _i_ short; as _swim_, _sing_, &c. The +Anglo-Saxon form of _run_ is _yrnan_. + +In the following words the change is from the Anglo-Saxon _['a]_ to the +Anglo-Saxon _[=i]_. In English, the regularity of the change is obscured by +a change of pronunciation. + + B['a]t, _I bit_; biton, _we bit_. + Sm['a]t, _I smote_; smiton, _we smit_. + +From these examples the reader has himself drawn his inference; _viz._ that +words like + + _Began, begun._ + _Ran, run._ + _Span, spun._ + _Sang, sung._ + [46]_Swang, swung._ + _Sprang, sprung._ + _Sank, sunk._ + _Swam, swum._ + _Rang, rung._ + [46]_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 _u_, as _swum_, and the forms in +_i_, _bit_, being plural. + + * * * * * + + +{302} + +CHAPTER XXI. + +ON MOODS. + +s. 356. The Anglo-Saxon infinitive has already been considered. + +s. 357. 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. 358. _If he speak_, as opposed to _if he speaks_, is characterised 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 an uninflected +word used in a limited sense, and consequently no true example of a +subjunctive. + +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._ _Plural._ | _Singular._ _Plural._ + 1. I was. We were. | If I were. If we were. + 2. Thou wast. Ye were. | If thou wert. If ye were. + 3. He was. They were. | If he were. If they were. + + * * * * * + + +{303} + +CHAPTER XXII. + +ON TENSES IN GENERAL. + +s. 359. 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. They are however, the only true tenses in our +language. In _I was beating_, _I have beaten_, _I had beaten_, and _I shall +beat_, a difference of time is expressed; but as it is expressed by a +combination of words, and not by a change of form, no true tenses are +constituted. + +In Greek the case is different. [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;[47] 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 {304} the [epsilon] disappears, whilst the [sigma] +(_s_) remains. [Greek: Etupsa] is said to be an aorist tense. _Scripsi_ : +_scribo_ :: [Greek: etupsa] : [Greek: tupto]. + +s. 360. 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 ibit imago.--_Aen._ iv. + + Ut primum alatis _tetigit_ magalia plantis.--_Aen._ iv. + +When a difference of form has ceased to express a difference of meaning, it +has become superfluous. This is the case with the two forms in question. +One of them may be dispensed with; and the consequence is, that, although +in the Latin language both the perfect and the aorist forms are found, they +are, with few exceptions, never found in the same word. Wherever there is +the perfect, the aorist is wanting, and _vice 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. 361. 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 {305} is by the possession of this form that the verbs of the +first six conjugations are characterized. + + 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_. + 3d. 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 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_. +This statement is taken from the Cambridge Philological Museum, ii. 378. +_Did_ from _do_ is also considered to be a reduplicate form. + +s. 362. 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 {306} 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. For the proof that the division of +verbs into weak and strong is a natural division, see the Chapter on +Conjugation. + + * * * * * + + +{307} + +CHAPTER XXIII. + +THE STRONG TENSES. + +s. 363. The strong praeterites are formed from the present by changing the +vowel, as _sing_, _sang_, _speak_, _spoke_. + +The first point in the history of these tenses that the reader is required +to be aware of, is stated in the Chapter upon the Numbers, viz., that, in +Anglo-Saxon, several 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_. + +As a general rule, the second singular has the same vowel with the plural +persons, as _burne_, _thou burntest_, plural _burnon_, _we burnt_. + +The bearing of this fact upon the praeterites has been indicated in p. 300. +In a great number of words we have a double form, as _ran_ and _run_, +_sang_ and _sung_, _drank_ and _drunk_, &c. One of these forms is derived +from the singular, and the other from the plural. I cannot say at what +period the difference of form ceased to denote a difference of sense. + +In cases where but one form is preserved, that form is not necessarily the +singular one. For instance, Ic f_a_nd, _I found_, we f_u_ndon, _we found_, +are the Anglo-Saxon forms. Now the present word _found_ comes, not from the +singular _fand_, but from the plural _fund_; although in the Lowland Scotch +dialect and in the old writers, the singular form occurs. + + Donald Caird finds orra things, + Where Allan Gregor _fand_ the tings.--Scott. + +Even in the present English it will be found convenient to {308} call the +forms like _sang_ and _drank_ the singular, and those like _sung_ and +_bound_ the plural forms. + +Be it observed, that, though this fact accounts for most of our double +forms, it will not account for all. In the Anglo-Saxon, Ic spr['ae]c, _I +spake_, we spr['ae]con, _we spake_. There is no change of number to account +for the two forms _spake_ and _spoke_. + +_First Class._ + +s. 364. Contains the two words _fall_ and _fell_, _hold_ and _held_, where +the sound of _o_ is changed into that of _[)e]_. Here must be noticed the +natural tendency of _a_ to become _o_; since the forms in Anglo-Saxon are, +_Ic fealle_, I fall; _Ic feoll_, I fell; _Ic healde_, I hold; _Ic heold_, I +held. + +_Second Class._ + +s. 365. Here the praeterite ends in _-ew_. Words of this class are +distinguished from those of the third Class by the different form of the +present tense. + + _Present._ _Praeterite._ + Draw Drew. + Slay Slew. + Fly Flew. + +In these words the _w_ has grown out of a _g_, as may be seen from the +Anglo-Saxon forms. The word _see_ (_saw_) belongs to this class: since, in +Anglo-Saxon, we find the forms _gese['a]h_ and _gesegen_, and in the +Swedish the praeterite form is _saag_. + +_Third Class._ + +s. 366. Here an _o_ before _w_, in the present, becomes _e_ before _w_ in +the praeterite; as + + _Present._ _Praeterite._ + Blow. Blew. + Crow. Crew. + Throw. Threw. + Know. Knew. + Grow. Grew. + +_Fourth Class._ + +s. 367. Contains the single word _let_, where a short _e_ in the {309} +present remains unchanged in the praeterite. In the Anglo-Saxon the present +form was _Ic laete_, the praeterite _Ic l['e]t_. + +_Fifth Class._ + +s. 368. Contains the single word _beat_, where a long _e_ remains +unchanged. In Anglo-Saxon the forms were _Ic beate_, _Ic beot_. + +_Sixth Class._ + +s. 369. Present _come_, praeterite _came_, participle _come_. In +Anglo-Saxon, _cume_, _com_, _cumen_. + +_Seventh Class._ + +s. 370. In this class we have the sounds of the _ee_, in _feet_, and of the +_a_ in _fate_ (spelt _ea_ or _a_), changed into _o_ or _oo_. As several +words in this class have a second form in _a_, the praeterite in _o_ or +_oo_ will be called the primary, the praeterite in _a_ the secondary form. + + _Present._ _Primary Praeterite._ _Secondary Praeterite._ + + Heave [48]Hove -- + Cleave Clove [48]Clave. + Weave Wove -- + Freeze Froze -- + Steal Stole [48]Stale. + Speak Spoke Spake. + Swear Swore Sware. + Bear Bore Bare. + Tear Tore [48]Tare. + Shear [48]Shore -- + Wear Wore [48]Ware. + Break Broke Brake. + Shake Shook -- + Take Took -- + Forsake Forsook -- + Stand Stood -- + -- Quoth -- + Get Got [48]Gat. + +The praeterite of _stand_ was originally long. This we collect {310} from +the spelling, and from the Anglo-Saxon form _st['o]d_. The process that +ejects the _nd_ is the same process that, in Greek, converts [Greek: +odont-os] into [Greek: odous]. + +All the words with secondary forms will appear again in the eighth class. + +_Eighth Class._ + +s. 371. In this class the sound of the _ee_ in _feet_, and the _a_ in +_fate_ (spelt _ea_), is changed into a. Several words of this class have +secondary forms. Further details may be seen in the remarks that come after +the following list of verbs. + + _Present._ _Primary Praeterite._ _Secondary Praeterite._ + + Speak Spake Spoke. + Break Brake Broke. + Cleave [49]Clave Clove. + Steal [49]Stale Stole. + Eat Ate -- + Seethe -- [49]Sod. + Tread [49]Trad Trod. + Bear Bare Bore. + Tear Tare Tore. + Swear Sware Swore. + Wear [49]Ware Wore. + Bid Bade Bid. + Sit Sate -- + Give Gave -- + Lie Lay -- + Get [49]Gat Got. + +Here observe,--1. That in _speak_, _cleave_, _steal_, the _ea_ has the same +power with the _ee_ in _freeze_ and _seethe_; so that it may be dealt with +as the long (or independent) sound of the _i_ in _bid_, _sit_, _give_. + +2. That the same view may be taken of the _ea_ in _break_, although the +word by some persons is pronounced _brake_. _Gabrika_, _gabrak_, +Moeso-Gothic; _briku_, _brak_, Old Saxon; _brece_, _brac_, Anglo-Saxon. +Also of _bear_, _tear_, _swear_, _wear_. In the provincial dialects these +words are even now pronounced _beer_, _teer_, _sweer_. The forms in the +allied languages are, in {311} respect to these last-mentioned words, less +confirmatory; Moeso-Gothic, _svara_, _b['a]ira_; Old High German, _sverju_, +_piru_. + +3. That the _ea_ in _tread_ was originally long; Anglo-Saxon, _tredan_, +_trede_, _tr['ae]d_, _treden_. + +4. _Lie._--Here the sound is diphthongal, having grown out of the +Anglo-Saxon forms _licgan_, _l['ae]g_, _legen_. + +5. _Sat._--The original praeterite was long. This we collect from the +spelling _sate_, and from the Anglo-Saxon _s['ae]t_. + +_Ninth Class._ + +s. 372. _A_, as in _fate_, is changed either into the _o_ in _note_, or the +_oo_ in _book_. Here it should be noticed that, unlike _break_ and _swear_, +&c., there is no tendency to sound the _a_ of the present as _ee_, neither +is there, as was the case with _clove_ and _spoke_, any tendency to +secondary forms in a. A partial reason for this lies in the original nature +of the vowel. The original vowel in _speak_ was e. If this was the _['e] +ferm['e]_ of the French, it was a sound from which the _a_ in _fate_ and +the _ee_ in _feet_ might equally have been evolved. The vowel sound of the +verbs of the present class was that of _a_ for the present and that of +_['o]_ for the praeterite forms; as _wace_, _w['o]c_, _grafe_, _gr['o]f_. +Now of these two sounds it may be said that the _a_ has no tendency to +become the _ee_ in _feet_, and that the _['o]_ has no tendency to become +the _a_ in _fate_. + +The sounds that are evolved from the accentuated _['o]_, are the _o_ in +_note_ and the _oo_ in _book_. + + _Present._ _Praeterite._ + + Awake Awoke. + Wake Woke. + Lade [50]Lode. + Grave [50]Grove. + Take Took. + Shake Shook. + Forsake Forsook. + Shape [50]Shope. + +_Tenth Class._ + +s. 373. Containing the single word _strike_, _struck_, _stricken_. It is +only in the Middle High German, the Middle Dutch, the New High German, the +Modern Dutch, and the English, that {312} this word is found in its +praeterite forms. These are, in Middle High German, _streich_; New High +German, _strich_; Middle Dutch, _str[^e]c_; Modern Dutch, _str[^i]k_. +Originally it must have been referable to the ninth class. + +_Eleventh Class._ + +s. 374. In this class we first find the secondary forms accounted for by +the difference of form between the singular and plural numbers. The change +is from the _i_ in _bite_ to the _o_ in _note_, and the _i_ in _pit_. +Sometimes it is from the _i_ in _bit_ to the _a_ in _bat_. The Anglo-Saxon +conjugation (A) may be compared with the present English (B). + +A. + + _Present._ _Praeterite sing._ _Praeterite plur._ + + Scine (_shine_) Sce['a]n (_I shone_) Scinon (_we shone_). + Arise (_arise_) Ar['a]s (_I arose_) Arison (_we arose_). + Smite (_smite_) Sm['a]t (_I smote_) Smiton (_we smite_). + +B. + + _Present._ _Praet.--Sing. form._ _Praet.--Pl. form._ + + Rise Rose [51]Ris. + Abide Abode -- + Shine Shone -- + Smite Smote Smit. + Ride Rode [51]Rid. + Stride Strode Strid. + Slide [51]Slode Slid. + Glide [51]Glode -- + Chide [51]Chode -- + Drive Drove [51]Driv. + Thrive Throve [51]Thriv. + Strive Strove -- + Write Wrote Writ. + Climb Clomb -- + Slit [51]Slat Slit. + Bite [51]Bat Bit. + +On this list we may make the following observations and statements. + +{313} + +1. That, with the exception of the word _slit_, the _i_ is sounded as a +diphthong. + +2. That, with the exception of _bat_ and _slat_, it is changed into _o_ in +the singular and into _[)i]_ in the plural forms. + +3. That, with the exception of _shone_, the _o_ is always long (or +independent). + +4. That, even with the word _shone_, the _o_ was originally long. This is +known from the final _-e_ mute, and from the Anglo-Saxon form _sc['e]an_; +Moeso-Gothic, _sk['a]in_; Old Norse, _skein_. + +5. That the _o_, in English, represents an _['a]_ in Anglo-Saxon. + +6. That the statement last made shows that even _bat_ and _slat_ were once +in the same condition with _arose_ and _smote_, the Anglo-Saxon forms being +_ar['a]s_, _sm['a]t_, _b['a]t_, _sl['a]t_. + +_Twelfth Class._ + +s. 375. In this class _i_ is generally short; originally it was always so. +In the singular form it becomes _[)a]_, in the plural, _[)u]_. + + _Present._ _Praet.--Sing. form._ _Praet.--Pl. form._ + Swim Swam Swum. + Begin Began Begun. + Spin [52]Span Spun. + Win [52]Wan [53]Won. + Sing Sang Sung. + Swing [52]Swang Swung. + Spring Sprang Sprung. + Sting [52]Stang Stung. + Ring Rang Rung. + Wring [52]Wrang Wrung. + Fling Flang Flung. + Cling -- Clung. + [52]Hing Hang Hung. + String [52]Strang Strung. + Sling -- Slung. + Sink Sank Sunk. + Drink Drank Drunk. + Shrink Shrank Shrunk. + Stink [52]Stank Stunk. + Swink -- -- + Slink -- Slunk. + Swell Swoll -- + {314} + Melt [54]Molt -- + Help [54]Holp -- + Delve [54]Dolv -- + Dig -- Dug. + Stick [54]Stack Stuck. + Run Ran Run. + Burst -- Burst. + Bind Band Bound. + Find [54]Fand Found. + Grind -- Ground. + Wind -- Wound. + +Upon this list we make the following observations and statements:-- + +1. That, with the exceptions of _bind_, _find_, _grind_, and _wind_, the +vowels are short (or dependent) throughout. + +2. That, with the exception of _run_ and _burst_, the vowel of the present +tense is either the _i_ or e. + +3. That _i_ short changes into _a_ for the singular, and into _u_ for the +plural forms. + +4. That _e_ changes into _o_ in the singular forms; these being the only +ones preserved. + +5. That the _i_ in _bind_, &c., changes into _ou_ in the plural forms; the +only ones current. + +6. That the vowel before _m_ or _n_ is, with the single exception of _run_, +always _i_. + +7. That the vowel before _l_ and _r_ is, with the single exception of +_burst_, always e. + +8. That, where the _i_ is sounded as in _bind_, the combination following +is _-nd_. + +9. That _ng_ being considered as a modification of _k_ (the Norse and +Moeso-Gothic forms being _drecka_ and _drikjan_), it may be stated that _i_ +short, in the twelfth class, precedes either a liquid or a mute of series +_k_. + +From these observations, even on the English forms only, we find thus much +regularity; and from these observations, even on the English forms only, we +may lay down a rule like the following: _viz._ that _i_ or _u_, short, +before the consonants _m_, _n_, {315} or _ck_, is changed into _a_ for the +singular, and into _u_ for the plural forms; that _i_ long, or diphthongal, +becomes _ou_; that _e_ before _l_ becomes _o_; and that _u_ before _r_ +remains unchanged. + +This statement, however, is nothing like so general as the one that, after +a comparison of the older forms and the allied languages, we are enabled to +make. Here we are taught, + +1. That, in the words _bind_, &c., the _i_ was once pronounced as in +_till_, _fill_; in other words, that it was the simple short vowel, and not +the diphthong _ey_; or at least that it was treated as such. + + _Moeso-Gothic._ + Binda Band Bundum Bundans. + Bivinda Bivand Bivundum Bivundums. + Fintha Fanth Funthum Funthans. + + _Anglo-Saxon._ + Bind Band Bundon Bunden. + Finde Fand Fundon Funden. + Grinde Grand Grundon Grunden. + Winde Wand Wundon Wunden. + + _Old Norse._ + Finn Fann Fundhum Funninn. + Bind Batt Bundum Bundinn. + Vind Vatt Undum Undinn. + +When the vowel _[)i]_ of the present took the sound of the _i_ in _bite_, +the _[)u]_ in the praeterite became the _ou_ in _mouse_. From this we see +that the words _bind_, &c., are naturally subject to the same changes with +_spin_, &c., and that, _mutatis mutandis_, they are so still. + +2. That the _e_ in _swell_, &c., was once _[)i]_. This we collect from the +following forms:--_hilpa_, Moeso-Gothic; _hilfu_, Old High German; _hilpu_, +Old Saxon; _hilpe_, Middle High German; _hilpe_, Old Frisian. +_Suillu_=_swell_, Old High German. _Tilfu_=_delve_, Old High German; +_dilbu_, Old Saxon. _Smilzu_, Old High German=_smelt_ or _melt_. This shows +that originally the vowel _i_ ran throughout, but that before _l_ and _r_ +it was changed into e. This change took place at different periods in +different dialects. The Old Saxon preserved the {316} _i_ longer than the +Anglo-Saxon. It is found even in the _middle_ High German; in the _new_ it +has become _e_; as _schwelle_, _schmelze_. In one word _milk_, the original +_i_ is still preserved; although in Anglo-Saxon it was _e_; as _melce_, +_mealc_=_milked_, _mulcon_. In the Norse the change from _i_ to _e_ took +place full soon, as _svell_=_swells_. The Norse language is in this respect +important. + +3. That the _o_ in _swoll_, _holp_, was originally _a_; as + + Hilpa Halp Hulpum Moeso-Gothic. + Suillu Sual Suullum[^e]s Old High German. + Hilfu Half Hulfum[^e]s Ditto. + Tilfu Talf Tulfum[^e]s Ditto. + Hilpe Halp Hulpun Middle High German. + Dilbe Dalp Dulbun Ditto. + Hilpe Halp Hulpon Ditto. + Svell Svall Sullum Old Norse. + Melte Mealt Multon Anglo-Saxon. + Helpe Haelp Hulpon Ditto. + Delfe Dealf Dulfon Ditto. + +4. That a change between _a_ and _o_ took place by times. The Anglo-Saxon +praeterite of _swelle_ is _sweoll_; whilst _ongon_, _bond_, _song_, +_gelomp_, are found in the same language for _ongan_, _band_, _sang_, +_gelamp_.--Rask's Anglo-Saxon Grammar, p. 90. + +5. That _run_ is only an apparent exception, the older form being _rinn_. + + The rain _rinns_ down through Merriland town; + So doth it down the Pa.--_Old Ballad._ + +The Anglo-Saxon form is _yrnan_; in the praeterite _arn_, _urnon_. A +transposition has since taken place. The word _run_ seems to have been +originally no present, but a praeterite form. + +6. That _burst_ is only an apparent exception. Before _r_, _[)e]_, _[)i]_, +_[)u]_, are pronounced alike. We draw no distinction between the vowels in +_pert_, _flirt_, _hurt_. The Anglo-Saxon forms are, _berste_, _byrst_, +_baerse_, _burston_, _borsten_. + +_Thirteenth Class._ + +s. 376. Contains the single word _choose_, in the praeterite _chose_; in +Anglo-Saxon, _ce['o]se_, _ce['a]s_. + + * * * * * + + +{317} + +CHAPTER XXIV. + +THE WEAK TENSES. + +s. 377. 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. + +When, however, the original word ends in _-d_ or _-t_, as _slight_ or +_brand_, then, and then only (and that not always), is there the addition +of the syllable _-ed_; as in _slighted_, _branded_. This is necessary, +since the combinations _slightt_ and _brandd_ are unpronounceable. + +Whether the addition be _-d_ or _-t_ depends upon the flatness or sharpness +of the preceding letter. + +After _b_, _v_, _th_ (as in _clothe_), _g_, or _z_, the addition is _-d_. +This is a matter of necessity. We say _stabd_, _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 {318} _father's_, &c., applied to another letter and to +another part of speech. + +For some historical notices respecting the use of _-d_, _-t_, and _-ed_, in +the spelling of the English praeterites and participles, the reader is +referred to the Cambridge Philological Museum, vol. i. p. 655. + +s. 378. The verbs of the weak conjugation fall into three classes. In the +first there is the simple addition of _-d_, _-t_, or _-ed_. + + Serve, served. + Cry, cried. + Betray, betrayed. + Expel, expelled. + Accuse, accused. + Instruct, instructed. + Invite, invited. + Waste, wasted. + + Dip, dipped (_dipt_). + Slip, slipped (_slipt_). + Step, stepped (_stept_). + Look, looked (_lookt_). + Pluck, plucked (_pluckt_). + Toss, tossed (_tost_). + Push, pushed (_pusht_). + Confess, confessed (_confest_) + +To this class belong the greater part of the weak verbs and all verbs of +foreign origin. + +s. 379. In the second class, besides the addition of _-t_ or _-d_, the +vowel is _shortened_. It also contains those words which end in _-d_ or +_-t_, and at the same time have a short vowel in the praeterite. Such, +amongst others, are _cut_, _cost_, &c., where the two tenses are alike, and +_bend_, _rend_, &c., where the praeterite is formed from the present by +changing _-d_ into _-t_, as _bent_, _rent_, &c. + +In the following list, the words ending in _-p_ are remarkable; since, in +Anglo-Saxon, each of them had, instead of a weak, a strong praeterite. + + Leave, left. + Cleave, cleft. + Bereave, bereft. + Deal, de[)a]l_t_. + Feel, fel_t_. + Dream, dre[)a]m_t_. + Lean, le[)a]n_t_. + Learn, learn_t_. + Creep, crept. + Sleep, slept. + Leap, lept. + Keep, kept. + Weep, wept. + Sweep, swept. + Lose, lost. + Flee, fled. + +In this class we sometimes find _-t_ where the _-d_ is expected; the forms +being _left_ and _dealt_, instead of _leaved_ and _dealed_. {319} + +s. 380. Third class.--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:-- + + Byegan, b['o]hte. + S[`e]can, s['o]hte. + Wyrcan, w['o]rhte. + Bringan, br['o]hte. + Thencan, th['o]hte. + +s. 381. 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, _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 {320} _eard__ian_ 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_. + +In several words there is the actual addition of the syllable _-ed_; in +other words _d_ is separated from the last letter of the original word by +the addition of a vowel; as _ended_, _instructed_, &c. Of this _e_ two +views may be taken. + +1. It may be derived from the original _o_ in _-ode_, the termination of +the first class in Anglo-Saxon. This is the opinion which we form when the +word in question is known to have belonged to the Anglo-Saxon language, +and, in it, to the first class. _Ended_, _planted_, _warded_, _hated_, +_heeded_, are (amongst others) words of this sort; their Anglo-Saxon forms +being _endode_, _plantode_, _weardode_, _hatode_, and _eahtode_, from +_endian_, _plantian_, _weardian_, _hatian_, and _eahtian_. + +2. The form may be looked upon, not as that of the praeterite, but as that +of the participle in a transferred sense. This is the view when we have two +forms, one with the vowel, and the other without it, as _bended_ and +_bent_, _wended_ and _went_, _plighted_ and _plight_. + +A. In several words the final _-d_ is changed into _-t_, as _bend_, _bent_; +_rend_, _rent_; _send_, _sent_; _gild_, _gilt_; _build_, _built_; _spend_, +_spent_, &c. + +B. In several words the vowel of the root is changed; as _feed_, _fed_; +_bleed_, _bled_; _breed_, _bred_; _meet_, _met_; _speed_, _sped_; +_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. {321} 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 _r[=e]ad_. 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 separating the praeterite +form from the present, when the root ends with the same sound with which +the affix begins. + +The addition of the vowel takes place only in verbs of the first class. + +The change from a long vowel to a short one, as in _feed_, _fed_, &c., can +only take place where there is a long vowel to be changed. + +Where the vowels are short, and, at the same time, the word ends in _-d_, +the _-d_ of the present may become _-t_ in the 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. + +Words like _planted_, _heeded_, &c., belong to the first class. Words like +_feed_, _lead_, to the second class. _Bend_ and _cut_ belong also to the +second class; they belong to it, however, by what may be termed an +etymological fiction. The vowel would be changed if it could. + +s. 382. _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_ +{322} 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 the Chapter upon Irregularity. + +_Aught._--In Anglo-Saxon _['a]hte_, the praeterite of the present form +_['a]h_, plural _['a]gan_.--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]gen_. _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_. + +_Durst._--The verb _dare_ is both transitive and intransitive. We can say +either _I dare do such a thing_, or _I dare_ (_challenge_) _such a man to +do it_. This, in the present tense, is unequivocally correct. In the past +the double power of the word _dare_ is ambiguous; still it is, to my mind +at least, allowable. We can certainly say _I dared him to accept my +challenge_; and we can, perhaps, say _I dared venture on the expedition_. +In this last sentence, however, _durst_ is the preferable expression. + +Now, although _dare_ is both transitive and intransitive, _durst_ is only +intransitive. It never agrees with the Latin word _provoco_; only with the +Latin word _audeo_. Moreover, the word _durst_ has both a present and a +past sense. The difficulty which it presents consists in the presence of +the _-st_, letters characteristic of the second person singular, but here +found in all the persons alike; as _I durst_, _they durst_, &c. + +The Moeso-Gothic forms are _dar_, _dart?_ _dar_, _da['u]rum_, _da['u]ruth_, +_da['u]run_, for the persons of the present tense; and _da['u]rsta_, +_da['u]rst[^e]s_, _da['u]rsta_, &c., for those of the praeterite. The same +is the case throughout the Germanic languages. No _-s_, however, appears in +the Scandinavian; the praeterites being _thordhi_ and _toerde_, Icelandic +and Danish. The Anglo-Saxon is _dear_=_I dare_, _dearst_=_thou darest_, +_durron_=_we_, {323} _ye_, or _they dare_; subjunctive, _durre_, _dorste_, +_dorston_. Old Saxon, present, _dar_; praeterite _dursta_. The Moeso-Gothic +tense, _da['u]rsta_, instead of _da['u]rda_, shows the antiquity of this +form in _-s_. + +The readiest mode of accounting for the form in question is to suppose that +the second singular has been extended over all the other persons. This +view, however, is traversed by the absence of the _-s_ in the Moeso-Gothic +present. The form there (real or presumed) is not _darst_, but _dart_. Of +this latter form, however, it must be remarked that its existence is +hypothetical. + +In Matthew xxvi. 67, of the Moeso-Gothic Gospel of Ulphilas, is found the +form _ka['u]past[^e]dun_, instead of _ka['u]patid['e]dun_, the praeterite +plural of _ka['u]patjan_=_to beat_. Here there is a similar insertion of +the _-s_.--Deutsche Grammatik, i. 848, 852, 853. + +The _-s_ in _durst_ has still to be satisfactorily accounted for. + +_Must._--A form common to all persons, numbers, and tenses. That neither +the _-s_ nor the _-t_ are part of the original root, is indicated by the +Scandinavian form _maae_ (Danish), pronounced _moh_; praeterite _maatte_. + +The readiest mode of accounting for the _-s_ in _must_, is to presume that +it belongs to the second singular, extended to the other persons, +_mo-est_=_must_. Irrespective, however, of other objections, this view is +traversed by the forms _m[^o]tan_, Moeso-Gothic (an infinitive), and +_m['o]t_, Moeso-Gothic, Old Saxon, and Anglo-Saxon (a first person +present). These neutralise the evidence given by the Danish form _maae_, +and indicate that the _-t_ is truly a part of the original root. + +Now, the _-t_ being considered as part of the root, the _-s_ cannot be +derived from the second singular; inasmuch as it precedes, instead of +following the _-t_. + +At one time, for want of a better theory, I conceived, that in the word in +point (and also in _durst_ and a few others), we had traces of the +Scandinavian passive. This notion I have, for evident reasons, abandoned. + +In p. 298 it was stated that the Moeso-Gothic termination of the second +singular of the strong praeterites was _-t_. It is {324} here mentioned +that _must_ is a praeterite form. Now the final letter of the root _mot_, +and the sign of the second singular of the strong praeterite, are the same, +_-t_. Now, as _-t_ cannot be immediately added to _t_, the natural form of +the second singular _m['o]t-t_ is impracticable. Hence, before the _-t_ of +the second person, the _-t_ of the root is changed, so that, instead of +_m['a]im['a]it-t_, _bigat-t_, _f['a]ifalth-t_, _l['a]ilot-t_, &c., we have +_m['a]im['a]is-t_, _bigas-t_, _f['a]ifals-t_, _l['a]ilos-t_, &c., +Moeso-Gothic.--See Deutsche Grammatik, 844. + +The euphonic reason for the _-s_, in _must_, is sufficient to show that it +is in a different predicament from _durst_. + +The provincial form _mun_, there or thereabouts equivalent in meaning to +_must_, has no etymological connexion with this last named word. It is a +distinct word, in Scandinavian _monne_. + +_Wist._--In its present form a regular 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_.--Here the double forms, _wiste_ and _wisse_, verify the statement +concerning the Moeso-Gothic _vissa_. + +In Icelandic.--_Veit_, _veizt_, _vitum_, _vissi_. Danish _ved_, _vide_, +_vidste_. Observe the form _vidste_; since, in it, the _-d_ of the root (in +spelling, at least), is preserved. The _-t_ of the Anglo-Saxon _wiste_ is +the _-t_, not of the root, but of the inflection. + +In respect to the four forms in question, _viz._, _wit_, _wot_, _wiss_, +_wist_; the first seems to be the root; the second a strong 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 {325} 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_. + +_Do._--In the phrase _this will do_=_this will answer the purpose_, the +word _do_ is wholly different from the word _do_, meaning _to act_. In the +first case it is equivalent to the Latin _valere_; in the second to the +Latin _facere_. Of the first the Anglo-Saxon inflection is _de['a]h_, +_dugon_, _dohte_, _dohtest_, &c. Of the second it is _d['o]_, _d['o]dh_, +_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 _deah_ does the same. + +In respect to the praeterite of _do_=_facio_, difficulties present +themselves. + +Is the word weak?--This is the view that arises from the form _did_. The +participle _done_ traverses this view. + +Is the word strong?--In favour of this notion we have the English +participle _done_, and the praeterite second singular in Old High German +_t[^a]ti_. Against it are the Old Saxon _d['e]dos_, and the Anglo-Saxon +_dydest_, as second singulars. + +Is there a reduplication?--If this were the case, we might assume such a +form as _d[^o]an_, _d['a]id[^o]_, for the Moeso-Gothic. This view, however, +is traversed by the substantival forms _d[^e]ds_, Moeso-Gothic; _t[^a]t_, +Old High German; _daed_, Anglo-Saxon; which show that the second _-d_ is +part of the original word. + +The true nature of the form _did_ has yet to be exhibited.--See Deutsche +Grammatik, i. 1041. + +_Mind--mind and do so and so._--In this sentence the word _mind_ is wholly +different from the noun _mind_. The Anglo-Saxon forms are _geman_, +_gemanst_, _gemunon_, without the _-d_; this letter occurring only in the +praeterite tense (_gemunde_, {326} _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. + +A praeterite formed upon a praeterite may also be called a secondary +praeterite; just as the word _theirs_, derived from _their_ (a case formed +from a case), is called a secondary genitive. + +In like manner the present form _mind_ is not a genuine present, but a +praeterite with a present sense; _its form being taken as the test_. +Presents of this sort may be called transformed praeterites. + +It is very evident that the praeterites most likely to become present are +those of the strong class. In the first place, the fact of their being +praeterite is less marked. The word _tell_ carries with it fewer marks of +its tense than the word _moved_. In the second place they can more +conveniently give rise to secondary praeterites. A weak praeterite already +ends in _-d_ or _-t_. If this be used as a present, a second _-d_ or _-t_ +must be appended. + +Hence it is that all the transposed praeterites in the Gothic tongues were, +before they took the present sense, not weak, but strong. The word in +question, _mind_ (from whence _minded_), is only an apparent exception to +this statement. + +Now the words _shall_, _can_, _owe_ (whence _aught_), _dare_, _may_, _man_ +(of the Anglo-Saxon _geman_, the origin of _mind_), are, (irrespective of +their other peculiarities), for certain etymological reasons, looked upon +as praeterite forms with a present sense. + +And the words _should_, _could_, _aught_, _dared_ (or _durst_), _must_, +_wist_, _might_, _mind_, are, for certain etymological reasons, looked upon +as secondary praeterites. + +This fact alters our view of the form _minded_. Instead of being a +secondary praeterite, it is a tertiary one. _Geman_ (the apparent present) +being dealt with as a strong praeterite with a present sense, _mind_ (from +the Anglo-Saxon _gemunde_) is the secondary praeterite, and _minded_ (from +the English _mind_) is a tertiary praeterite. To analyse the word, the +{327} praeterite is first formed by the vowel _a_, then by the addition of +_-d_, and, thirdly, by the termination _-ed_; _man_, _mind_, _minded_. + +The proof of this we collect from the second persons singular, +Moeso-Gothic. The second singular praeterite of the strong class is _-t_; +of the weak class, _-es_; of the present, both weak and strong, _-s_. Now +the second singular of the words in point is _skal-t_, _kan-t_, _['a]ih-t_, +_dar-t?_ _mag-t_, _man-t_, respectively.--Deutsche Grammatik, i. 852. + +Besides this, in Anglo-Saxon, the plural forms are those of the strong +praeterites. See Rask, p. 79. + +_Yode._--The obsolete praeterite of _go_, now replaced by _went_, the +praeterite of _wend_. Regular, except that the initial _g_ has become _y_. + + * * * * * + + +{328} + +CHAPTER XXV. + +ON CONJUGATION. + +s. 383. The current statement respecting verbs like _sing_ and _fall_, &c., +is that they are irregular. How far this is the case may be seen from a +review of the twelve classes in Moeso-Gothic, where the change of the vowel +is subject to fewer irregularities than elsewhere. In the first six +conjugations the praeterite is replaced by a perfect tense. Consequently, +there is a reduplication. Of these the fifth and sixth superadd to the +reduplication a change of the vowel. + + _Present._ _Past.[55]_ _Past Participle._ + _Sing._ _Plural._ + + 1. Salta S['a]isalt S['a]isaltum Saltans _Leap._ + 2. H['a]ita H['a]ih['a]it H['a]ih['a]itum H['a]itans _Call._ + 3. Hl['a]upa Hl['a]il['a]up Hl['a]il['a]upum Hl['a]upans _Run._ + 4. Sl[^e]pa S['a]izl[^e]p S['a]isl[^e]pum Sl[^e]pans _Sleep._ + 5. L['a]ia L['a]il[^o] L['a]il[^o]um L['a]ilans _Laugh._ + 6. Gr[^e]ta G['a]igr[^o]t G['a]igr[^o]tum Gr[^e]tans _Weep._ + 7. Svara Sv[^o]r Sv[^o]rum Svarans _Swear._ + 8. Greipa Gr['a]ip Gripum Gripans _Gripe._ + 9. Biuda B['a]uth Budum Budans _Offer._ + 10. Giba Gab G[^e]bum Gibans _Give._ + 11. Stila Stal St[^e]lum Stulans _Stole._ + 12. Rinna Rann Runnum Runnans _Run._ + +Exhibited in a tabular form, the changes of the vowels in Moeso-Gothic are +as follows:-- + + _Prs._ _Pst. S._ _Pst. Pl._ _Part._ + 1. a a a a + 2. ['a]i ['a]i ['a]i ['a]i + 3. ['a]u ['a]u ['a]u ['a]u + 4. [^e] [^e] [^e] [^e] + {329} + 5. ['a]i [^o] [^o] a + 6. [^e] [^o] [^o] [^e] + 7. a [^o] [^o] a + 8. ei ['a]i i i + 9. iu ['a]u u u + 10. i a [^e] i + 11. i a [^e] u + 12. i a u u + +s. 384. Such is the arrangement of the strong verbs in Moeso-Gothic, with +which the arrangement of the strong verbs in the other Gothic languages may +or may not coincide. + +For a full and perfect coincidence three things are necessary:--1. the +coincidence of form; 2. the coincidence of distribution; 3. the coincidence +of order. + +1. _Coincidence of form._.--Compared with the Moeso-Gothic _rinna_, _rann_, +_runnum_, _runnans_, the Old High German inflection coincides most rigidly; +_e.g._, _rinnu_, _ran_, _runnum[^e]s_, _runnan[^e]_. The vowel is the same +in the two languages, and it is similarly changed in each. It is very +evident that this might be otherwise. The Moeso-Gothic _i_ might have +become _e_, or the _u_ might have become _o_. In this case, the formula for +the two languages would not have been the same. Instead of _i, a, u, u_ +(see the tabular arrangement), serving for the Old High German as well as +the Moeso-Gothic, the formula would have been, for the Moeso-Gothic, _i, a, +u, u_, and for the Old High German _e, a, u, u_, or _i, a, o, o_. The forms +in this latter case would have been equivalent, but not the same. + +2. _Coincidence of distribution._--A given number of words in the +Moeso-Gothic form their praeterites by changing _i_ into _a_; in other +words, a given number of verbs in Moeso-Gothic are inflected like _rinna_ +and _rann_. The same is the case with the Old High German. Now if these +words are the same in the two languages, the Moeso-Gothic and the Old High +German (as far as the agreement extends) coincide in the distribution of +their verbs; that is, the same words are arranged in the same class, or +(changing the phrase) are distributed alike. + +3. _Coincidence of order._--The conjugation to which the Moeso-Gothic words +_rinna_ and _rann_ belong is the twelfth. The same is the case in Old High +German. It might, {330} however, have been the case that in Old High German +the class corresponding with the twelfth in Moeso-Gothic was the first, +second, third, or any other. + +Now a coincidence of form, a coincidence of distribution, and a coincidence +of order, in all the classes of all the Gothic languages, is more than can +be expected. If such were the case, the tenses would be identical +throughout. + +Coincidence of form is infringed upon by the simple tendency of sounds to +change. _Hilpa_ in Moeso-Gothic is _helpe_ in Anglo-Saxon: _hulpans_ in +Moeso-Gothic is _holfan[^e]r_ in Old High German, and _holpen_ in +Anglo-Saxon. A change, however, of this sort is insufficient to affect the +arrangement. _Helpan_, in Anglo-Saxon, is placed in the same class with +_spinnan_; and all that can be said is, that the Moeso-Gothic _i_ is, in +Anglo-Saxon, represented not by _i_ exclusively, but sometimes by _i_ and +sometimes by _[)e]_. + +Coincidence of distribution is of great etymological importance. A word may +in one stage of a language take the form of one conjugation, and in another +that of another. The word _climban_ is, in Anglo-Saxon, placed in the same +conjugation with _drincan_, &c. For this there was a reason; _viz._, the +fact of the _i_ being short. For the _i_ being short there was a reason +also. The _b_ preceded the vowel _a_, and consequently was sounded. This +was the case whether the word was divided _clim-ban_ or _climb-an_. _An_, +however, was no part of the original word, but only the sign of the +infinitive mood. As such it became ejected. The letter _b_ then came at the +end of the word; but as the combination _mb_, followed by nothing was +unstable, _b_ was soon lost in pronunciation. Now _b_ being lost, the vowel +which was once short became lengthened, or rather it became the sound of +the diphthong _ei_; so that the word was no longer called _cl[)i]mb_, but +_clime_. Now the words that follow the analogy of _spin_, _span_ ,&c. (and +consequently constitute the twelfth class), do so, not because the vowel is +_i_, but because it is a short _i_; and when the _i_ is sounded like a +diphthong, the praeterite is formed differently. The Anglo-Saxon praeterite +of _climban_ was sounded _cl[)o]mm_, and rhymed to _from_; the English +praeterite (when strong) of {331} _climb_ is sounded _cl[=o]mbe_, rhyming +to _roam_. The word _climb_, which was once classed with _spin_ and _sing_, +is now to be classed with _arise_ and _smite_; in other words, it is +distributed differently. + +Coincidence in the order of the classes is violated when a class which was +(for instance) the third in one language becomes, in another language the +fourth, &c. In Moeso-Gothic the class containing the words _smeita_, +_sm['a]it_, _smitum_, _smitans_, is the eighth. This is a natural place for +it. In the class preceding it, the vowel is the same in both numbers. In +the classes that follow it, the vowel is changed in the plural. The number +of classes that in Moeso-Gothic change the vowel is five; _viz._, the +eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth. Of these the eighth is the +first. The classes where the change in question takes place form a natural +subdivision, of which the eighth class stands at the head. Now in +Anglo-Saxon the vowel is not changed so much as in the Moeso-Gothic. In +words like _choose_, _give_, and _steal_, the vowel remains unaltered in +the plural. In Moeso-Gothic, however, these words are, respectively, of the +ninth, tenth, and eleventh classes. It is not till we get to the eleventh +that the Anglo-Saxon plurals take a fresh vowel. As the presence or absence +of a change of vowel naturally regulates the order of the classes, the +eighth class in Moeso-Gothic becomes the eleventh in Anglo-Saxon. If it +were not so, the classes where a change took place in the plural would be +separated from each other. + +The later the stage of the language, the less complete the coincidence in +the classes. + +Of the present arrangement, the twelfth class coincides most throughout the +Gothic languages. + +In the word _climb_, a reason was given for its having changed from the +twelfth class to the eleventh class. This, in the present state of our +knowledge, cannot always be done. + +These statements are made lest the reader should expect to find between the +English and the Anglo-Saxon classification anything more than a partial +coincidence. A detailed exhibition of the English conjugations would form a +work of {332} itself. Moreover, the present classes of the strong verbs +must, to a great degree, be considered as provisional. + +Observe, that it is the _classes_ of the strong verbs that are provisional. +With the great divisions into weak and strong, the case is far otherwise. +The general assertions which will be made in p. 333, respecting the strong +conjugation, show most cogently that the division is a natural one. + +s. 385. Preliminary, however, to making them, the reader's 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 form 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 Wr['ae]c. + Fret Fretted. | Frete Fr['ae]t. + Mete Meted. | Mete M['ae]t. + Shear Sheared. | Scere Scear. + Braid Braided. | Brede Br['ae]d. + Knead Kneaded. | Cnede Cn['ae]d. + Dread Dreaded. | Dr['ae]de 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. + {333} + Swallow Swallowed. | Swelge Swealh. + Mourn Mourned. | Murne Mearn. + Spurn Spurned. | Spurne Spearn. + Carve Carved. | Ceorfe Cearf. + Starve Starved. | Steorfe Staerf. + Thresh Threshed. | Thersce Thaerse. + 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. 386. The first of the general statements made concerning strong verbs, +with a view of proving that the order is _natural_, shall be the one +arising out of the preceding list of praeterites. + +I. Many strong verbs become weak; whilst no weak verb ever becomes strong. + +II. All the strong verbs are of Saxon origin. None are classical. + +III. The greater number of them are strong throughout the Gothic tongues. + +IV. No new word is ever, upon its importation, inflected according to the +strong conjugation. It is always weak. As early as A.D. 1085, the French +word _adouber_=_to dubb_, was introduced into English. Its praeterite was +_dubbade_.[56] + +{334} + +V. All derived words are inflected weak. The intransitive forms _drink_ and +_lie_, are strong; the transitive forms _drench_ and _lay_, are weak. + +The fourth statement will again be recurred to. The present object is to +show that the division into strong and weak is natural. + +s. 387. _Obsolete forms._--Instead of _lept_, _slept_, _mowed_, _snowed_, +&c., we find, in the provincial dialects and in the older writers, the +strong forms _lep_, _step_, _mew_, _snew_, &c. This is no more than what we +expect. Here there are two forms, and each form is of a different +conjugation. + +s. 388. _Double Forms._--In _lep_ and _mew_ we have two forms, of which one +only is current. In _swoll_ and _swelled_, in _clomb_ and _climbed_, and in +_hung_ and _hanged_, we have two forms, of which both are current. These +latter are true double forms. Of double forms there are two kinds. + +1. Those like _swoll_ and _swelled_; where there is the same tense, but a +different conjugation. + +2. Those like _spoke_ and _spake_; where the tense is the same and the +conjugation the same, but where the form is different. + +The bearings of these double forms (which, however, are points of general +rather than of English grammar) are as follows. Their number in a given +language may be very great, and the grammarian of a given language may call +them, not double forms of the same tense, but different tenses. Let the +number of words like _swoll_ and _swelled_ be multiplied by 1000. The +chances are, that, in the present state of etymology, they would be called +first praeterites and second praeterites. The bearing of this remark upon +the so-called aorists and futures of the Greek language is evident. I think +that a writer in the Cambridge Philological Museum[57] indicates the true +nature of those tenses. They are the same tense in a different conjugation, +and differ from _swoll_ and _swelled_ only in the frequency of their +occurrence. + +Difference of form, and difference of conjugation, may each simulate a +difference of tense. + + * * * * * + + +{335} + +CHAPTER XXVI. + +DEFECTIVENESS AND IRREGULARITY. + +s. 389. In s. 361 the distinction between irregularity and defectiveness +was slightly foreshadowed. In pp. 243, 267, it was exhibited in its +principles. In the present chapter the difference is more urgently insisted +on. + +The words that have hitherto served as illustrations are the personal +pronouns _I_ and _me_, and the adjectives _good_, _better_, and _best_. See +the sections referred to above. + +The view of these words was as follows: _viz._, that none of them were +irregular, but that they were all defective. _Me_ wanted the nominative, +_I_ the oblique cases. _Good_ was without a comparative, _better_ and +_best_ had no positive degree. + +Now _me_ and _better_ may be said to make good the defectiveness of _I_ and +_good_; and _I_ and _good_ may be said to replace the forms wanting in _me_ +and _better_. This gives us the principle of compensation. To introduce a +new term, _I_ and _me_, _good_ and _better_, may be said to be +complementary to each other. + +What applies to nouns applies to verbs also. _Go_ and _went_ are not +irregularities. _Go_ is (at least in the present stage of our language) +defective in the past tense. _Went_ (at least in its current sense) is +without a present. The two words, however, compensate their mutual +deficiencies, and are to each other complementary. + +The distinction between defectiveness and irregularity, is the first +instrument of criticism for coming to true views concerning the proportion +of the regular and irregular verbs. + +The second instrument of criticism in determining the irregular verbs, is +the meaning that we attach to terms. {336} + +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_. Now this position is +sufficiently exclusive; since it proscribes not only the whole class of +strong verbs, but also words like _bent_ and _sent_, where _-t_ exists, but +where it does not exist as _an addition_. The regular forms, it may be +said, should be _bended_ and _sended_. + +Exclusive, however, as the rule in question is, it is plain that it might +be made more so. The regular forms might, by the _fiat_ of a rule, be +restricted to those in _-d_. In this case words like _wept_ and _burnt_ +would be added to the already numerous list of irregulars. + +Finally, a further limitation might be made, by laying down as a rule that +no word was regular, unless it ended in _-ed_. + +Thus much concerning the modes of making rules exclusive, and, +consequently, of raising the amount of irregularities. This is the last art +that the philosophic grammarian is ambitious of acquiring. True etymology +reduces irregularity by making the rules of grammar, not exclusive, but +general. The _quantum_ of irregularity is in the inverse proportion to the +generality of our rules. In language itself there is no irregularity. The +word itself is only another name for our ignorance of the processes that +change words; and, as irregularity is in the direct proportion to the +exclusiveness of our rules, the exclusiveness of our rules is in the direct +proportion to our ignorance of etymological processes. + +The explanation of some fresh terms will lead us towards (but not to) the +definition of the word irregular. + +I. _Vital and obsolete processes._--The word _moved_ is formed from _move_, +by the addition of _-d_. The addition of _-d_ is the process by which the +present form is rendered 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 {337} 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, in the present English, make words like _bent_, _sought_, +&c. (the euphonic processes being allowed for), regular, and all the strong +verbs irregular. + +The very fact of so natural a class as that of the strong verbs being +reduced to the condition of irregulars, invalidates such a definition as +this. + +II. _Processes of necessity as opposed to processes of habit._--The +combinations _-pd-_, _-fd-_, _-kd-_, _-sd-_, and some others, are +unpronounceable. Hence words like _step_, _quaff_, _back_, _kiss_, &c., +take after them the sound of _-t_: _stept_, _quafft_, &c. (the _sound_ +being represented), being their praeterites, instead of _stepd_, _quaffd_. +Here the change from _-d_ (the natural termination) to _-t_ is a matter (or +process) of necessity. It is not so with words like _weep_ and _wept_, &c. +Here the change of vowel is not necessary. _Weept_ might have been said if +the habit of the language had permitted. + +A definition of the word irregular might be so framed as to include all +words whose natural form was modified by any euphonic process whatever. In +this case _stept_ (modified by a {338} 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. + +III. _Ordinary processes as opposed to extraordinary processes._--The whole +scheme of language is analogical. A new word introduced into a language +takes the forms of its cases or tenses, &c., from the forms of the cases or +tenses, &c., of the old words. The analogy is extended. Now few forms (if +any) are so unique as not to have some others corresponding with them; and +few processes of change are so unique as not to affect more words than one. +The forms _wept_ and _slept_ correspond with each other. They are brought +about by the same process; _viz._ by the shortening of the vowel in _weep_ +and _sleep_. The analogy of _weep_ is extended to _sleep_, and _vice +vers[^a]_. Changing our expression, a common influence affects both words. +The alteration itself is an ultimate fact. The extent of its influence is +an instrument of classification. When processes affect a considerable +number of words, they may be called ordinary processes; as opposed to +extraordinary processes, which affect one or few words. + +When a word stands by itself, with no other corresponding to it, we confess +our ignorance, and say that it is affected by an extraordinary process, by +a process peculiar to itself, or by a process to which we know nothing +similar. + +A definition of the word irregular might be so framed as to include all +words affected by extraordinary processes; the rest being considered +regular. + +IV. _Positive processes as opposed to ambiguous processes._--The words +_wept_ and _slept_ are similarly affected. Each is changed from _weep_ and +_sleep_ respectively; and we know that {339} 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_ is explained in p. 267, and the reader is referred to the section. +There the form is accounted for in two ways, of which only one can be the +true one. Of the two processes, each might equally have brought about the +present form. Which of the two it was, we are unable to say. Here the +process is ambiguous. + +A definition of the word irregular might be so framed as to include all +words affected by ambiguous processes. + +V. _Normal processes as opposed to processes of confusion._--Let a certain +word come under class A. Let all words under class A be similarly affected. +Let a given word come under class A. This word will be affected even as the +rest of class A is affected. The process affecting, and the change +resulting, will be normal, regular, or analogical. + +Let, however, a word, instead of really coming under class A, _appear_ to +do so. Let it be dealt with accordingly. The analogy then is a false one. +The principle of imitation is a wrong one. The process affecting is a +process of confusion. + +Examples of this (a few amongst many) are words like _songstress_, +_theirs_, _minded_, where the words _songstr-_, _their-_, and _mind-_, are +dealt with as roots, which they are not. + +Ambiguous processes, extraordinary processes, processes of confusion--each, +or all of these are legitimate reasons for calling words irregular. The +practice of etymologists will determine what definition is most convenient. + +With extraordinary processes we know nothing about the word. With ambiguous +processes we are unable to make a choice. With processes of confusion we +see the analogy, but, at the same time, see that it is a false one. + +s. 390. _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 {340} +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 to the +spelling. This reduces the word _could_ to an irregularity, not of +language, but only of orthography. + +That the mere ejection of the _-n_ in _can_, and that the mere lengthening +of the vowel, are not irregularities, we learn from a knowledge of the +processes that convert the Greek [Greek: odontos] (_odontos_) into [Greek: +odous] (_odows_). + +s. 391. 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_, _thu 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_. + +The whole of the present chapter is indicative of the nature of +irregularity, and of the elements that should enter into the definition of +it, rather than exhaustive of the detail. + +The principle that I recognise for myself is to consider no word irregular +unless it can be proved so. This view includes the words affected by +ambiguous processes, and by processes of confusion, and no others. The +words affected by {341} extraordinary processes form a provisional class, +which a future increase of our etymological knowledge may show to be +regular. _Worse_ and _could_ (its spelling being considered) are the +fairest specimens of our irregulars. The class, instead of filling pages, +is exceedingly limited. + + * * * * * + + +{342} + +CHAPTER XXVII. + +THE IMPERSONAL VERBS. + +s. 392. _Meseems._--Equivalent to _it seems to me_; _mihi videtur_, [Greek: +phainetai moi]. The verb _seems_ is intransitive; consequently the pronoun +_me_ has the power of a dative case. The pronoun it is not required to +accompany the verb. + +s. 393. _Methinks._--In Anglo-Saxon there are two forms; _thencan_=_to +think_, and _thincan_=_to seem_. It is from the latter form that the verb +in _methinks_ comes. Such being the case, it is intransitive, and +consequently the pronoun _me_ has the power of a dative case. The pronoun +_it_ is not required to accompany the verb. + +Of this word we have also the past form _methought_. + + Methought I saw my late espoused wife + Brought to me, like Alcestis, from the grave. + + MILTON. + +s. 394. _Me listeth_, or _me lists_.--Equivalent to _it pleases me_=_me +juvat_. Anglo-Saxon _lystan_=_to wish_, _to choose_, also _to please_, _to +delight_; Norse, _lysta_. Unlike the other two, the verb is transitive, so +that the pronoun _me_ has the power of an accusative case. The pronoun _it_ +is not required to accompany the verb. + +These three are the only true impersonal verbs in the English language. +They form a class by themselves, because no pronoun accompanies them, as is +the case with the equivalent expressions _it appears_, _it pleases_, and +with all the other verbs in the language. + +In the old language impersonal verbs, or rather the impersonal use of +verbs, was commoner than at present. + + Him _oughten_ now to have the lese pain. + + _Legend of Good Women_, 429. + +{343} + + Him _ought_ not to be a tyrant. + + _Legend of Good Women_, 377. + + Me mete.--CHAUCER. + + Well me quemeth.--_Conf. Amantis._ + +In the following lines the construction is, _it shall please your Majesty_. + + I'll muster up my friends to meet your Grace, + Where and what time your Majesty shall please. + + _Richard III_., iv. 4. + +See a paper of Mr. Guest's, Phil. Trans., vol. ii. 241. + +Strictly speaking, the impersonal verbs are a part of syntax rather than of +etymology. + + * * * * * + + +{344} + +CHAPTER XXVIII. + +THE VERB SUBSTANTIVE. + +s. 395. 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. 396. _Was._--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 has both a full +conjugation and a regular one. In Anglo-Saxon it has an infinitive, a +participle present, and a participle past. In Moeso-Gothic it is inflected +throughout with _-s_; as _visa_, _vas_, _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. 397. _Be._--Inflected in Anglo-Saxon throughout the present tense, both +indicative and subjunctive; found also as an {345} infinitive _be['o]n_, as +a gerund to _beonne_, and as a participle _beonde_. In the present English +its inflection is as follows:-- + + _Present._ + + _Indicative._ | _Conjunctive._ | _Imperative._ + _Sing._ _Plur._ | _Sing._ _Plur._ | _Sing._ _Plur._ + | | + 1. -- -- | Be. Be. | -- -- + 2. Beest. -- | Beest? Be. | Be. Be. + 3. -- -- | Be. Be, Bin. | -- -- + | | + _Infin._ To be. _Pres. P._ Being. _Past Part._ Been. + +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: _b['y]st_ 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 _b['e]on_; so that the words _every thing_ are to be considered +equivalent to the plural form _all things_. The phrase in Latin would stand +thus, _quotquot pulcra sint_; in Greek thus, [Greek: ha an kala ei]. The +_indicative_ plural is, in Anglo-Saxon, not _be['o]n_, but _be['o]dh_ and +_be['o]_. + +s. 398. In the Deutsche Grammatik, i. 1051, 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 (or form), 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 {346} (so muckle) men as they +might be if they were full grown (waxen) in customary age." + +s. 399. If we consider the word _be['o]n_ like the word _weordhan_ (see +below) 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.--"_Ic dhe secge, he[`o] is be dham h['u]se dhe Fegor h['a]tte, +and n['a]n man nis dhe hig w['i]te_ (_shall, may know_) _aer dh['a]m myclan +d['o]me_."--Aelfric's Homilies, 44. + +s. 400. _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 all the Indo-European 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._ _Ani._ _Ashti_. + Greek [Greek: Eimi]. [Greek: Eis]. [Greek: Ei]. + Latin _Sum._ _Es._ _Esti._ + Lithuanic _Esmi._ _Essi._ _Esti._ + Old Slavonic _Yesmy._ _Yesi._ _Yesty._ + Moeso-Gothic _Im._ _Is._ _Ist._ + Old Saxon -- [58]_Is._ _Ist._ + Anglo-Saxon _Eom._ _Eart._ _Is._ + Icelandic _Em._ _Ert._ _Er._ + English _Am_. _Art._ _Is._ + +In English and Anglo-Saxon the word is found in the {347} present +indicative only. In English it is inflected through both numbers; in +Anglo-Saxon in the singular number only. The Anglo-Saxon plurals are forms +of the German _seyn_, a verb whereof we have, in the present English, no +vestiges. + +_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._ + + * * * * * + + +{348} + +CHAPTER XXIX. + +THE PRESENT PARTICIPLE. + +s. 401. 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_. + +It is with the oblique cases of the present participles of the classical +languages, rather than with the nominative, that we must compare the +corresponding participle in Gothic; _e.g._, {349} [Greek: echont-os] +(_ekhontos_), Greek; _habent-is_, Latin; _hap[^e]nt-[^e]r_, Old High +German. + +s. 402. 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 pratton]=_the active principle of a thing_. + +s. 403. 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. + +Archbishop Whately has some remarks on this substantival power in his +Logic. + +Some remarks of Mr. R. Taylor, in the Introduction to his edition of +Tooke's Diversions of Purley, modify this view. According to these, the +_-ing_ in words like _rising_ is not the _-ing_ of the present participle; +neither has it originated in the Anglo-Saxon _-end_. It is rather the +_-ing_ in words like _morning_, which is anything but a participle of the +non-existent verb _morn_, and which has originated in the Anglo-Saxon +substantival termination _-ung_. Upon this Rask writes as +follows:--"_Gitsung_, _gewilnung_=_desire_; _swutelung_=_manifestation_; +_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. {350} + +The view, then, that remains to be taken of the forms in question is this: + +1. That the older forms in _-ing_ are substantival in origin, and=the +Anglo-Saxon _-ung_. + +2. That the latter ones are participial, and have been formed on a false +analogy. + + * * * * * + + +{351} + +CHAPTER XXX. + +THE PAST PARTICIPLE. + +s. 404. 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. 405. _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 unexceptionable 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_. + +These two statements bear upon the future history of the praeterite. That +of the two forms _sang_ and _sung_, one will, in the course of language, +become obsolete is nearly certain; and, as the plural form is also that of +the participle, it is the plural form which is most likely to be the +surviving one. {352} + +s. 406. 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. 407. 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. 408. 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_ reduces words like _baerned_ and _baernde_ to +the same form, it is easy to account for the present {353} identity of form +between the weak praeterites and the participles in _-d_: _e. g._, _I +moved_, _I have moved_, &c. + +s. 409. 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_ +(_ge-birge_)=_a range of hills_. + +7. But it has also a _frequentative_ power; a frequentative power which is, +in all probability, secondary to its collective power: since things which +recur frequently recur with a tendency to collection or association; Middle +High German, _ge-rassel_=_rustling_; _ge-rumpel_=_c-rumple_. + +8. And it has also the power of expressing the possession of a quality. + + _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_. {354} + +9. Hence it is probable that the _ga-_, _ki-_, or _gi-_, Gothic, is the +_cum_ of Latin languages. Such is Grimm's view, as given in Deutsche +Grammatik, i. 1016. + +Concerning this, it may be said that it is deficient in an essential point. +It does not show how the participle past is collective. Undoubtedly it may +be said that every such participle is in the condition of words like +_ge-feax_ and _ge-heort_; _i. e._, that they imply an association between +the object and the action or state. But this does not seem to be Grimm's +view; he rather suggests that the _ge-_ may have been a prefix to verbs in +general, originally attached to all their forms, but finally abandoned +everywhere except in the case of the participle. The theory of this prefix +has yet to assume a satisfactory form. + + * * * * * + + +{355} + +CHAPTER XXXI. + +COMPOSITION. + +s. 410. 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. + +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. 411. 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 {356} 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 _ear-rings_, and from _rings_ in +general (and so particularised), is a _ring_ for the _finger_. A _ring +finger_, as distinguished from _fore-fingers_, and from _fingers_ in +general (and so particularised), is a _finger_ whereon _rings_ are worn. + +s. 412. At times this rule seems to be violated. The words _spitfire_ and +_daredevil_ seem exceptions to it. At the first glance it seems, in the +case of a _spitfire_, that what he (or she) _spits_ is _fire_; and that, in +the case of a _daredevil_, 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 _spitfire_ voids his fire by spitting. A _daredevil_, in meeting +the fiend, would not shrink from him, but would defy him. A _spitfire_ is +not one who spits fire, but one whose fire is _spit_. A _daredevil_ is not +one who dares even the devil, but one by whom the devil is even dared. + +s. 413. 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 {357} other, the former element is +active, the latter passive. Etymologically speaking, the former element, in +English compounds, is the most important. + +s. 414. Most numerous are the observations that bear upon the composition +of words; _e.g._, how nouns combine with nouns, as in _sunbeam_; nouns with +verbs, as in _daredevil_, &c. It is thought 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. + +_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.--Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, +iii. 405. + +_Words._--In _father-s_, _clear-er_, _four-th_, &c., there is the addition +of a letter or a syllable, and it may be even of the part of a word. There +is no addition, however, of a whole word. This distinguishes composition +from derivation. + +_Treating the combination as a single term._--In determining, in certain +cases, between derived words and compound words, there is an occasional +perplexity; the perplexity, however, is far greater in determining between +a compound word and _two words_. In the eyes of one grammarian the term +_mountain height_ may be as truly a compound word as _sunbeam_. In the eyes +of another grammarian it may be no compound word, but two words, just as +_Alpine height_ is two words; _mountain_ being dealt with as an adjective. +It is in the determination of this that the accent plays an important part. +This fact was foreshadowed in the Chapter upon Accents. {358} + +s. 415. 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 _rest_, _friend_, _spare_, _prec-_, _breath_, +there is an accent. Each of these syllables must be compared with the one +that precedes it; _rest_ with _then_, _friend_ with _my_, and so on +throughout the line. Compared with the word _and_, the word _spare_ is not +only accented, but the accent is conspicuous and prominent. There is so +little on _and_, and so much on _spare_, that the disparity of accent is +very manifest. + +Now, if in the place of _and_, there was some other word, a word not so +much accented as _spare_, but still more accented than _and_, this +disparity would be diminished, and the accents of the two words might be +said to be at _par_, or nearly so. As said before, the line was slightly +altered from Churchill, the real reading being + + Then r['e]st, my fri['e]nd, _spare, spare_ thy pr['e]cious breath.-- + +In the true reading we actually find what had previously only been +supposed. In the words _spare, spare_, the accents are nearly at _par_. +Such the difference between accent at _par_ and disparity of accent. + +Good illustrations of the parity and disparity of accent may be drawn from +certain names of places. Let there be such a sentence as the following: +_the lime house near the bridge north of the new port._ Compare the parity +of accent on the separate words _lime_ and _house_, _bridge_ and _north_, +_new_ and _port_, with the disparity of accent in the compound words +_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. + +s. 416. The difference between a compound word and two words is greatest +where the first is an adjective. This we see in 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_; or _bl['u]e b['e]ll_, meaning a _bell +that is blue_, with _bl['u]ebell_, the flower. {359} 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 four small classes of exceptions, it may be laid down, that, in +the English language, _there is no composition unless there is either a +change of form or a change of accent_. + +The reader is now informed, that unless, in what has gone before, he has +taken an exception to either a statement or an inference, he has either +seen beyond what has been already laid down by the author, or else has read +him with insufficient attention. This may be shown by drawing a distinction +between a compound form and a compound idea. + +In the words _a red house_, each word preserves its natural and original +meaning, and the statement is _that a house is red_. By a parity of +reasoning _a mad house_ should mean a _house that is mad_; and, provided +that each word retain its natural meaning and its natural accent, such is +the fact. Let a _house_ mean, as it often does, a _family_. Then the +phrase, _a mad house_, means that the _house_, _or family_, _is mad_, just +as a _red house_ means that the _house is red_. Such, however, is not the +current meaning of the word. Every one knows that _a mad house_ means _a +house for mad men_; in which case it is treated as a compound word, and has +a marked accent on the first syllable, just as _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, expresses a compound idea; as opposed +to two ideas, or a double idea. The word _beef steak_ is evidently a +compound idea; but, as there is no disparity of accent, it is not a +compound word. Its sense is compound; its form is not compound, but double. +This indicates the objection anticipated, which is this: _viz._, that a +definition, which would exclude such a word as _beef steak_ from the list +of compounds, is, for that very reason, exceptionable. I answer to this, +that the term in question is a compound idea, and not a compound form; in +other words, that it is a compound in logic, but not a compound in +etymology. {360} 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 the four +classes of exceptions) thus: _There is no true composition without either a +change of form or a change of accent._ As I wish to be clear upon this +point, I shall illustrate the statement by its application. + +The word _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 two words +in the other. + +The words _mountain ash_ and _mountain height_ are generally (perhaps +always) pronounced with an equal accent on the syllables _mount-_ and +_ash_, _mount-_ and _height_, respectively. In this case the word +_mountain_ must be dealt with as an adjective, and the words considered as +two. The word _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. 417. 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 word (or words) _gallant mast_. If _gallant_ mean +_brave_, there are _two words_. If the words be two, there {361} 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, make 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. 418. _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 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; at the time in point each word having a separate and +independent existence: whilst, in a later stage of language, 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 _bishopric_. In the present language the word _ric_ has no separate +and independent existence. For all this, the word {362} 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. + +For the following words a separate independent root is presumed rather than +shown. It is presumed, however, on grounds that satisfy the etymologist. + +_Mis-_, as in _misdeed_, &c.--Moeso-Gothic, _miss[^o]_=_in turns_; Old +Norse, _[^a] mis_=_alternately_; Middle High German, _misse_=_mistake_. The +original notion _alternation_, thence _change_, thence _defect_. Compare +the Greek [Greek: allos].--Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 470. + +_Dom_, as in _wisdom_, &c.--The substantive _d[^o]m_ presumed.--Deutsche +Grammatik, ii. 491. + +_Hood_ and _head_, as in _Godhead_, _manhood_, &c.--The substantive +_h['a]ids_=_person_, _order_, _kind_, presumed.--Deutsche Grammatik, ii. +497. Nothing to do with the word _head_. + +_Ship_, as in _friendship_.--Anglo-Saxon, _-scipe_ and _-sceaeft_; German, +_-schaft_; Moeso-Gothic, _gaskafts_=_a creature_, or _creation_. The +substantive _skafts_ or _skap_ presumed. The _-skip_ or _-scape_ in +_landskip_ is only an older form.--Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 522. + +_Less_, as in _sleepless_, &c., has nothing to do with _less_. Derived from +_l['a]us_, _l[^o]s_, _destitute of_=Latin, _expers_.--Deutsche Grammatik, +ii. 565. + +For the further details, which are very numerous, see the Deutsche +Grammatik, vol. iii. + +s. 419. "Subject to four classes of 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 p. 359. The first class +of exceptions consists {363} 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 opposition 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 creates an +accent which otherwise would be absent. Hence words like _monksh['o]od_, +_well-h['e]ad_, and some others. + +Real reduplications of consonants, as in _hop-pole_, may have the same +parity of accent with the true aspirates: and for the same reasons. They +are rare combinations that require effort and attention. + +The second class of exceptions contains those words wherein between the +first element and the second there is so great a disparity, either in the +length of the vowel, or the length of the syllable _en masse_, as to +counteract the natural tendency of the first element to become accented. +One of the few specimens of this class (which after all may consist of +double words) is the term _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. + +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 {364} we owe to the multiplicity of +elements (classical and Gothic) in the English language. + +To anticipate objections to the rule respecting the disparity of accent, it +may be well to state in fresh terms a fact already indicated, viz., that +the same combination of words may in one sense be compound, and in the +other double (or two). _An uphill game_ gives us the combination _up_ + +_hill_ as a compound. _He ran up hill_ gives us the combination _up_ + +_hill_ as two words. So it is with _down_ + _hill_, _down_ + _right_, and +other words. _Man-servant_, _cock-sparrow_, &c., are double or compound, as +they are pronounced _m['a]n-s['e]rvant_, _m['a]n-servant_, +_c['o]ck-sp['a]rrow_, or _c['o]ck-sparrow_. + +The fourth class is hypothetical. I can, however, imagine that certain +compounds may, if used almost exclusively in poetry, and with the accent at +_par_, become so accented even in the current language. + +s. 420. For a remark on the words _peacock_, _peahen_, see the Chapter upon +Gender.--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 p. 355. 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_); {365} _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. 421. It must be clear, _ex vi termini_, that in every compound word +there are 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 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. 422. _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. 423. _Decomposites._--"Composition is the joining together of _two_ +words."--See p. 357. + +In the first edition the sentence ran "_two or more_" words; being so +written to account for compounds like _mid-ship-man_, {366} +_gentle-man-like_, &c., where the number of verbal elements seems to amount +to three. + +Nevertheless, the caution was unnecessary. Compound radicals like _midship_ +and _gentleman_, are, for the purposes of composition, single words. +Compounds wherein one element is compound are called decomposites. + +s. 424. The present chapter closes with the notice of two classes of words. +They are mentioned now, not because they are compounds, but because they +can be treated of here more conveniently than elsewhere. + +There are a number of words which are never found by themselves; or, if so +found, have never the same sense that they have in combination. Mark the +word combination. The terms in question are points of combination, not of +composition: since they form not the parts of words, but the parts of +phrases. Such are the expressions _time and tide_--_might and main_--_rede +me my riddle_--_pay your shot_--_rhyme and reason_, &c. These words are +evidently of the same class, though not of the same species with +_bishopric_, _colewort_, _spillikin_, _gossip_, _mainswearer_, and the +words quoted in p. 362. These last-mentioned terms give us obsolete words +preserved in composition. The former give us obsolete words preserved in +combination. + +The other words are etymological curiosities. They may occur in any +language. The English, however, from the extent of its classical element, +is particularly abundant in them. It is a mere accident that they are all +compound words. + + * * * * * + + +{367} + +CHAPTER XXXII. + +ON DERIVATION AND INFLECTION. + +s. 425. 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 {368} so called. I am not certain, however, that for so +doing there is any better reason than mere convenience. By some the decrees +of comparison are considered as points of inflection. + +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. 426. 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 can not do what was done +with the word _strength_, I can not take from them the part which I look +upon as the derivational addition, and after that leave an independent +word. _Strength_ - _th_ is a true word; _fowl_ or _fugel_ - _l_ is no true +word. If I believe these latter words to be derivations at all, I do it +because I find in words like _handle_, &c., the _-l_ as a derivational +addition. Yet, as the fact of a word being sometimes used as a derivational +addition does not preclude it from being at other times a part of the root, +the evidence that the words in question are not simple, but derived, is not +cogent. In other words, it is evidence of the second degree. + +II. _According to the effect._--The syllable _-en_ in the word _whiten_ +changes the noun _white_ into a verb. This is its effect. We may so +classify as to arrange combinations like _-en_ (whose effect is to give the +idea of the verb) in one order; whilst combinations like _th_ (whose effect +is, as in the word _strength_, to give the idea of abstraction) form +another order. + +III. _According to the form._--Sometimes the derivational {369} element is +a vowel (as the _-ie_ in _doggie_); sometimes a 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. For the detail of +the derivative forms, see Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 89-405. + +IV. _According to the historical origin of the derivational elements._--For +this see the Chapter upon Hybridism. + +V. _According to the number of the derivational elements._--In _fisher_, as +compared with _fish_, there is but one derivational affix. In _fishery_, as +compared with _fish_, the number of derivational elements is two. + +s. 427. The list (taken from Walker) of words alluded to in p. 293, is as +follows:-- + + _Nouns._ _Verbs._ + + ['A]bsent abs['e]nt. + ['A]bstract abstr['a]ct. + ['A]ccent acc['e]nt. + ['A]ffix aff['i]x. + A['u]gment augm['e]nt. + C['o]lleague coll['e]ague. + C['o]mpact comp['a]ct. + C['o]mpound comp['o]und. + C['o]mpress compr['e]ss. + C['o]ncert conc['e]rt. + C['o]ncrete concr['e]te. + C['o]nduct cond['u]ct. + C['o]nfine conf['i]ne. + C['o]nflict confl['i]ct. + C['o]nserve cons['e]rve. + C['o]nsort cons['o]rt. + C['o]ntract contr['a]ct. + C['o]ntrast contr['a]st. + C['o]nverse conv['e]rse. + C['o]nvert conv['e]rt. + D['e]sert des['e]rt. + D['e]scant desc['a]nt. + D['i]gest dig['e]st. + ['E]ssay ess['a]y. + ['E]xtract extr['a]ct. + F['e]rment ferm['e]nt. + Fr['e]quent freq['u]ent. + ['I]mport imp['o]rt. + ['I]ncense inc['e]nse. + ['I]nsult ins['u]lt. + ['O]bject obj['e]ct. + P['e]rfume perf['u]me. + P['e]rmit perm['i]t. + Pr['e]fix pref['i]x. + Pr['e]mise prem['i]se. + Pr['e]sage pres['a]ge. + Pr['e]sent pres['e]nt. + Pr['o]duce prod['u]ce. + Pr['o]ject proj['e]ct. + Pr['o]test prot['e]st. + R['e]bel reb['e]l. + R['e]cord rec['o]rd. + {370} + R['e]fuse ref['u]se. + S['u]bject subj['e]ct. + S['u]rvey surv['e]y. + T['o]rment torm['e]nt. + Tr['a]nsfer transf['e]r. + Tr['a]nsport. transp['o]rt. + +s. 428. _Churl_, _earl_, _owl_, _fowl_, _hail_, _nail_, _sail_, _snail_, +_tail_, _hazel_, _needle_, _soul_, _teazle_, _fair_, _beam_, _bottom_, +_arm_, _team_, _worm_, _heaven_, _morn_, _dust_, _ghost_, _breast_, _rest_, +_night_, _spright_, _blind_, _harp_, _flax_, _fox_, _finch_, _stork_, &c. +All these words, for certain etymological reasons, are currently +considered, by the latest philologists, as derivatives. Notwithstanding the +general prevalence of a fuller form in the Anglo-Saxon, it is clear that, +in respect to the evidence, they come under division B. + +s. 429. Forms like _tip_, from _top_, _price_ and _prize_, &c., are of +importance in general etymology. Let it be received as a theory (as with +some philologists is really the case) that fragmentary sounds like the +_-en_ in _whiten_, the _-th_ in _strength_, &c., were once _words_; or, +changing the expression, let it be considered that all derivation was once +composition. Let this view be opposed. The first words that are brought to +militate against it are those like _tip_ and _prize_, where, instead of any +_addition_, there is only _a change_; and, consequently, no vestiges of an +older _word_. This argument, good as far as it goes, is rebutted in the +following manner. Let the word _top_ have attached to it a second word, in +which second word there is a small vowel. Let this small vowel act upon the +full one in _top_, changing it to _tip_. After this, let the second word be +ejected. We then get the form _tip_ by the law of accommodation, and not as +an immediate sign of derivation. The _i_ in _chick_ (from _cock_) may be +thus accounted for, the _-en_ in _chicken_ being supposed to have exerted, +first, an influence of accommodation, and afterwards to have fallen off. +The _i_ in _chick_ may, however, be accounted for by simple processes. + +s. 430. 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. + + * * * * * + + +{371} + +CHAPTER XXXIII. + +ADVERBS. + +s. 431. _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. This division is +logical rather than etymological. + +A division, however, which although logical bears upon etymology, is the +following:-- + +_Well, better, ill, worse._--Here we have a class of adverbs expressive of +degree, or intensity. Adverbs of this kind are capable of taking an +inflection, _viz._, that of the comparative and superlative degrees. + +_Now, then, here, there._--In the idea expressed by these words there are +no degrees of intensity. Adverbs of this kind are incapable of taking any +inflection. + +Words like _better_ and _worse_ are adjectives or adverbs as they are +joined to nouns or verbs. + +Adverbs differ from nouns and verbs in being susceptible of one sort of +inflection only, _viz._, that of degree. + +Secondly, adverbs may be divided according to their form and origin. This +is truly an etymological classification. + +A _Better, worse._--Here the combination of sounds gives equally an +adjective and an adverb. _This book is better than that_--here _better_ +agrees with _book_, and is therefore adjectival. _This looks better than +that_--here _better_ qualifies _looks_, and is therefore adverbial. Again; +_to do a thing with violence_ is equivalent _to do a thing violently_. This +shows how adverbs may arise out of cases. In words like the English +_better_, the Latin _vi_=_violenter_, the Greek [Greek: kalon]=[Greek: +kalos], we have {372} 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. + +B _Brightly, bravely._--Here an adjective is rendered adverbial by the +addition of the derivative syllable _-ly_. Adverbs like _brightly_, &c., +may (laxly speaking) be called adverbs of derivation. + +C _Now._--This word has not satisfactorily been shown to have originated as +any other part of speech but as an adverb. Words of this sort are adverbs +absolute. + +_When, now, well, worse, better._--here the adverbial expression consists +in a single word, and is _simple_. _To-day_, _yesterday_, _not at all_, +_somewhat_--here the adverbial expression consists of a compound word, or a +phrase. This indicates the division of adverbs into simple and complex. + +s. 432. The adverbs of deflection (of the chief importance in etymology) +may be arranged after a variety of principles. I. According to the part of +speech from whence they originate. This is often an adjective, often a +substantive, at times a pronoun, occasionally a preposition, rarely a verb. +II. According to the part of the inflection from whence they originate. +This is often an ablative case, often a neuter accusative, often a dative, +occasionally a genitive. + +The following notices are miscellaneous rather than systematic. + +_Else, unawares, eftsoons._--These are the genitive forms of adjectives. +_By rights_ is a word of the same sort. + +_Once, twice, thrice._--These are the genitive forms of numerals. + +_Needs_ (as in _needs must go_) is the genitive case of a substantive. + +_Seldom._--The old dative (singular or plural) of the adjective _seld_. + +_Whilom._--The dative (singular or plural) of the substantive _while_. + +_Little, less, well._--Neuter accusatives of adjectives. _Bright_, in the +_sun shines bright_, is a word of the same class. The {373} neuter +accusative is a common source of adverbs in all tongues. + +_Athwart._--A neuter accusative, and a word exhibiting the Norse neuter in +_-t_. + +s. 433. _Darkling._--This is no participle of a verb _darkle_, but an +adverb of derivation, like _unwaringun_=_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.--Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 236. + +s. 434. "Adverbs like _brightly_ may (laxly speaking) be called adverbs of +derivation." Such the assertion made a few paragraphs above. The first +circumstance that strikes the reader is, that the termination _-ly_ is +common both to adjectives and to adverbs. This termination was once an +independent word, _viz._, _leik_. Now, as _-ly_ sprung out of the +Anglo-Saxon _-lice_, and as words like _early_, _dearly_, &c., were +originally _arl[^i]ce_, _deorl[^i]ce_, &c., and as _arl[^i]ce_, +_deorl[^i]ce_, &c., were adjectives, the adverbs in _-ly_ are (_strictly +speaking_) adverbs, not of derivation, but of deflection. + +It is highly probable that not only the adverbs of derivation, but that +also the absolute adverbs, may eventually be reduced to adverbs of +deflection. For _now_, see Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 249. + + * * * * * + + +{374} + +CHAPTER XXXIV. + +ON CERTAIN ADVERBS OF PLACE. + +s. 435. 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. 436. 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. + +s. 437. This may be seen in the following table, illustrative of the forms +_here_, _hither_, _hence_, and taken from the Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 199. + + _Moeso-Gothic_ thar, thath, thathro, _there, thither, thence_. + h[^e]r, hith, hidr[^o], _here, hither, hence_. + _Old High German_ hu[^a]r, huara, huanana, _where, whither, whence_. + 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 German_ d[^a], dan,dannen, _there, thither, thence_. + w[^a], war, wannen, _where, whither, whence_. + hie, her, hennen, _here, hither, hence_. + {375} + _Modern High German_ da, dar, dannen, _there, thither, thence_. + wo, wohin, wannen, _where, whither, whence_. + hier, her, hinnen, _here, hither, hence_. + +s. 438. These local terminations were commoner in the earlier stages of +language than at present. The following are from the Moeso-Gothic:-- + + Innathr[^o] = _from within_. + [=U]tathr[^o] = _from without_. + Innathr[^o] = _from above_. + F['a]irrathr[^o] = _from afar_. + Allathr[^o] = _from all quarters_. + +Now a reason for the comparative frequency of these forms in Moeso-Gothic +lies in the fact of the Gospel of Ulphilas being a translation from the +Greek. The Greek forms in [Greek: -then, esothen, exothen, anothen, +porrhothen, pantothen], were just the forms to encourage such a formation +as that in _-thro_.--Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 199, &c. + +s. 439. 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 statement, however, explains only the peculiarity of their +orthography; since it by no means follows, that, because the _-s_ in _ones_ +and the _-s_ in _whennes_, _thennes_ are equally replaced by _-ce_ in +orthography, they must equally have the same origin in etymology. + +s. 440. _Yonder._--In the Moeso-Gothic we have the following forms: +_j['a]inar_, _j['a]ina_, _j['a]inthr[^o]_=_illic_, _illuc_, _illinc_. They +do not, however, explain the form _yon-d-er_. It is not clear whether the +_d_=the _-d_ in _j[^a]ind_, or the _th_ in _j['a]inthro_. + +_Anon_, as used by Shakspeare, in the sense of _presently_.--The probable +history of this word is as follows: the first syllable contains a root akin +to the root _yon_, signifying _distance in place_. The second is a +shortened form of the Old High German and Middle High German, _-nt_, a +termination expressive, 1, of removal in space; 2, of removal in time; Old +High German, _enont_, _ennont_; Middle High German, {376} _enentlig_, +_jenunt_=_beyond_. The transition from the idea of _place_ to that of +_time_ is shown in the Old High German, _n[^a]hunt_, and the Middle High +German, _vernent_=_lately_; the first from the root _nigh_, the latter from +the root _far_.--See Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 215. + + * * * * * + + +{377} + +CHAPTER XXXV. + +ON WHEN, THEN, AND THAN. + +s. 441. 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 pronominal in origin. + +As to the word _than_, the conjunction of comparison, it is a variety of +_then_; the notions of _order_, _sequence_, and _comparison_ being allied. + +_This is good_: _then_ (or _next in order_) _that is good_, is an +expression sufficiently similar to _this is better than that_ to have given +rise to it. + + * * * * * + + +{378} + +CHAPTER XXXVI. + +PREPOSITIONS AND CONJUNCTIONS. + +s. 442. _Prepositions._--Prepositions, as such, are wholly unsusceptible of +inflection. Other parts of speech, in a state of inflection, may be used +with a prepositional sense. This, however, is not an inflection of +prepositions. + +No word is ever made a preposition by the addition of a derivational[59] +element. If it were not for this, the practical classification of the +prepositions, in respect to their form, would coincide with that of the +adverbs. As it is, there are only the prepositions of deflection, and the +absolute prepositions. On another principle of division there are the +simple prepositions (_in_, _on_, &c.), and the complex prepositions +(_upon_, _roundabout_, _across_). + +The prepositions of deflection, when simple, originate chiefly in adverbs, +as _up_, _down_, _within_, _without_, unless, indeed, we change the +assertion, and say that the words in point (and the others like them) are +adverbs originating in prepositions. The absence of characteristic +terminations renders these decisions difficult. + +The prepositions of deflection, when complex, originate chiefly in nouns, +accompanied by an absolute preposition; as _instead of_ of substantival, +_between_ of adjectival origin. + +The absolute prepositions, in the English language, are _in_, _on_, _of_, +_at_, _up_, _by_, _to_, _for_, _from_, _till_, _with_, _through_. + +s. 443. _Conjunctions._--Conjunctions, like prepositions, are wholly +unsusceptible of inflection. Like prepositions they {379} are never made by +means of a derivational element. Like prepositions they are either simple +(as _and_, _if_), or complex (as _also_, _nevertheless_). + +The conjunctions of deflection originate chiefly in imperative moods (as +_all_ save _one_, _all_ except _one_); participles used like the ablative +absolute in Latin (as _all_ saving _one_, _all_ excepting _one_); adverbs +(as _so_); prepositions (as _for_); and relative neuters (as _that_). + +The absolute conjunctions in the English language are _and_, _or_, _but_, +_if_. + +s. 444. _Yes, no._--Although _not_ may be reduced to an adverb, _nor_ to a +conjunction, and _none_ to a noun, these two words (the direct affirmative, +and the direct negative) are referable to none of the current parts of +speech. Accurate grammar places them in a class by themselves. + +s. 445. _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 affirmatives; 3, direct negatives; +4, absolute conjunctions; 5, absolute prepositions; 6, adverbs +unsusceptible of degrees of comparison; 7, inseparable prefixes. + + * * * * * + + +{380} + +CHAPTER XXXVII. + +ON THE GRAMMATICAL POSITION OF THE WORDS MINE AND THINE. + +s. 446. 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._--Laying aside the habit of the Germans and other nations, +of using the third person plural for the second singular (as in expressions +like _wie befinden sie sich_ = _how do they find themselves?_ instead of +_how do you find yourself?_) the Greek language gives us examples of +interchange in the way of persons in the promiscuous use of [Greek: nin, +min, 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. {381} + +These statements are made for the sake of illustrating, not of exhausting, +the subject. It follows, however, as an inference from them, that the +classification of pronouns is complicated. Even if we knew the original +power and derivation of every form of every pronoun in a language, it would +be far from an easy matter to determine therefrom the paradigm that they +should take in grammar. To place a word according to its power in a late +stage of language might confuse the study of an early stage. To say that +because a word was once in a given class, it should always be so, would be +to deny that in the present English _they_, _these_, and _she_ are personal +pronouns at all. + +The two tests, then, of the grammatical place of a pronoun, its _present +power_ and its _original power_, are often conflicting. + +In the English language the point of most importance in this department of +grammar is the place of forms like _mine_ and _thine_; in other words, of +the forms in _-n_. Are they genitive cases of a personal pronoun, as _mei_ +and _tui_ are supposed to be in Latin, or are they possessive pronouns like +_meus_ and _tuus_? + +Now, if we take up the common grammars of the English language _as it is_, +we find, that, whilst _my_ and _thy_ are dealt with as genitive cases, +_mine_ and _thine_ are considered adjectives. In the Anglo-Saxon grammars, +however, _min_ and _thin_, the older forms of _mine_ and _thine_, are +treated as genitives; of which _my_ and _thy_ have been dealt with as +abbreviated forms, and that by respectable scholars. + +Now, to prove from the syntax of the older English that in many cases the +two forms were convertible, and to answer that the words in question are +_either_ genitive cases or adjectives, is lax philology; since the real +question is, _which of the two is the primary, and which the secondary +meaning?_ + +s. 447. The _[`a] priori_ view of the likelihood of words like _mine_ and +_thine_ being genitive cases, must be determined by the comparison of three +series of facts. + +1. The ideas expressed by the genitive case, with particular reference to +the two preponderating notions of possession and partition. {382} + +2. The circumstance of the particular notion of possession being, in the +case of the personal pronouns of the two first persons singular, generally +expressed by a form undoubtedly adjectival. + +3. The extent to which the idea of partition becomes merged in that of +possession, and _vice vers[^a]_. + +s. 448. _The ideas of possession and partition as expressed by genitive +forms._--If we take a hundred genitive cases, and observe their +construction, we shall find, that, with a vast majority of them, the +meaning is reducible to one of two heads; _viz._, the idea of possession or +the idea of partition. + +Compared with these two powers all the others are inconsiderable, both in +number and importance; and if, as in the Greek and Latin languages, they +take up a large space in the grammars, it is from their exceptional +character rather than from their normal genitival signification. + +Again, if both the ideas of possession and partition may, and in many cases +must be, reduced to the more general idea of relation, this is a point of +grammatical phraseology by no means affecting the practical and special +bearings of the present division. + +s. 449. _The adjectival expression of the idea of possession._--All the +world over, a property is a possession; and _persons_, at least, may be +said to be the owners of their attributes. Whatever may be the nature of +words like _mine_ and _thine_, the adjectival character of their Latin +equivalents, _meus_ and _tuus_, is undoubted. + +_The ideas of partition and possession merge into one another._--_A man's +spade is the_ possession _of a man; a man's hand is the_ part _of a man._ +Nevertheless, when a man uses his hand as the instrument of his will, the +idea which arises from the fact of its being _part_ of his body is merged +in the idea of the possessorship which arises from the feeling of ownership +or mastery which is evinced in its subservience and application. Without +following the refinements to which the further investigation of these +questions would lead us, it is sufficient to suggest that the preponderance +of the two allied ideas of partition and possession is often determined by +the {383} personality or the non-personality of the subject, and that, when +the subject is a person, the idea is chiefly possessive; when a thing, +partitive--_caput fluvii_=_the head, which is a part, of a river_; _caput +Toli_=_the head, which is the possession, of Tolus_. + +But as persons may be degraded to the rank of things, and as things may, by +personification, be elevated to the level of persons, this distinction, +although real, may become apparently invalid. In phrases like a _tributary +to the Tiber_--_the criminal lost his eye_--_this field belongs to that +parish_--the ideas of possessorship and partition, as allied ideas +subordinate to the idea of relationship in general, verify the interchange. + +s. 450. These observations should bring us to the fact that there are two +ideas which, more than any other, determine the evolution of a genitive +case--the idea of partition and the idea of possession; _and that genitive +cases are likely to be evolved just in proportion as there is a necessity +for the expression of these two ideas_.--Let this be applied to the +question of the [`a] priori probability of the evolution of a genitive case +to the pronouns of the first and second persons of the singular number. + +s. 451. _The idea of _possession_, and its likelihood of determining the +evolution of a genitive form to the pronouns of the first and second person +singular._ --It is less likely to do so with such pronouns than with other +words, inasmuch as it is less necessary. It has been before observed, that +the practice of most languages shows a tendency to express the relation by +adjectival forms--_meus_, _tuus_. + +An objection against the conclusiveness of this argument will be mentioned +in the sequel. + +s. 452. _The idea of _partition_, and its likelihood of determining the +evolution of a genitive form, &c._--Less than with other words. + +A personal pronoun of the _singular_ number is the name of a unity, and, as +such, the name of an object far less likely to be separated into parts than +the name of a collection. Phrases like, _some of them_, _one of you_, _many +of us_, _any of them_, _few of us_, &c., have no analogues in the singular +number, such as _one of me_, _a few of thee_, &c. The partitive words that +can {384} combine with singular pronouns are comparatively few; _viz._, +_half_, _quarter_, _part_, &c.: and they can all combine equally with +plurals--_half of us_, _a quarter of them_, _a part of you_, _a portion of +us_. The partition of a singular object with a pronominal name is of rare +occurrence in language. + +This last statement proves something more than appears at first sight. It +proves that no argument in favour of the so-called _singular_ genitives, +like _mine_ and _thine_, can be drawn from the admission (if made) of the +existence of the true plural genitives _ou-r_, _you-r_, _thei-r_. The two +ideas are not in the same predicament. We can say, _one of ten_, or _ten of +twenty_; but we cannot say _one of one_--_Waes hira Matheus sum_=_Matthew +was one of them_; Andreas--_Your noither_=_neither of you_; Amis and +Ameloun--from Mr. Guest: _Her eyder_=_either of them_; Octavian.--Besides +this, the form of the two numbers are neither identical, nor equally +genitival; as may be seen by contrasting _mi-n_ and _thi-n_ with _ou-r_ and +_you-r_. + +s. 453. Such are the chief _[`a] priori_ arguments against the genitival +character of words like _mine_ and _thine_. + +Akin to these, and a point which precedes the _[`a] posteriori_ evidence as +to the nature of the words in question, is the determination of the side on +which lies the _onus probandi_. This question is material; inasmuch as, +although the present writer believes, for his own part, that the forms +under discussion are adjectival rather than genitival, this is not the +point upon which he insists. What he insists upon is the fact of the +genitival character of _mine_ and _thine_ requiring a particular proof; +which particular proof no one has yet given: in other words, his position +is that they are not to be thought genitive until proved to be such. + +It has not been sufficiently considered that the _prim[^a] facie_ evidence +is against them. They have not the form of a genitive case--indeed, they +have a different one; and whoever assumes a second form for a given case +has the burden of proof on his side. + +s. 454. Against this circumstance of the _-n_ in _mine_ and _thine_ being +the sign of anything rather than of a genitive case, and against the +_prim[^a] facie_ evidence afforded by it, the {385} following facts may, or +have been, adduced as reasons on the other side. The appreciation of their +value, either taken singly or in the way of cumulative evidence, is +submitted to the reader. It will be seen that none of them are +unexceptionable. + +s. 455. _The fact, that, if the words _mine_ and _thine_ are not genitive +cases, there is not a genitive case at all._--It is not necessary that +there should be one. Particular reasons in favour of the probability of +personal pronouns of the singular number being destitute of such a case +have been already adduced. _It is more likely that a word should be +defective than that it should have a separate form._ + +s. 456. _The analogy of the forms _mei_ and _[Greek: emou]_ in Latin and +Greek._--It cannot be denied that this has some value. Nevertheless, the +argument deducible from it is anything but conclusive. + +1. It is by no means an indubitable fact that _mei_ and [Greek: emou] are +really cases of the pronoun. The _extension_ of a principle acknowledged in +the Greek language might make them the genitive cases of adjectives used +pronominally. Thus, + + [Greek: To emon] = [Greek: ego], + [Greek: Tou emou] = [Greek: emou], + [Greek: Toi emoi] = [Greek: emoi]. + +Assume the omission of the article and the extension of the Greek principle +to the Latin language, and [Greek: emou] and _mei_ may be cases, not of +[Greek: eme] and _me_, but of [Greek: emos] and _meus_. + +2. In the classical languages the partitive power was expressed by the +genitive. + + "---- multaque pars mei + Vitabit Libitinam." + +This is a reason for the evolution of a genitive power. Few such forms +exist in the Gothic; _part my_ is not English, nor was _dael min_ +Anglo-Saxon,=_part of me_, or _pars mei_. + +s. 457. The following differences of form, are found in the different +Gothic languages, between the equivalents of _mei_ and _tui_, the so-called +genitives of _ego_ and _tu_, and the equivalents of _meus_ and _tuus_, the +so-called possessive adjectives. {386} + + + _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 this list, those languages where the two forms are alike are not +exhibited. This is the case with the Anglo-Saxon and Old Saxon. + +In the above-noticed differences of form lie the best reasons for the +assumption of a genitive case, as the origin of an adjectival form; and, +undoubtedly, in those languages, where both forms occur, it is convenient +to consider one as a case and one as an adjective. + +s. 458. 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. 459. _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 {387} 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. Such +is the general statement. Reasons for believing that in the particular +cases of the words in question such is the fact, will be found hereafter. + +As to the question whether it is most likely for an adjective to be derived +from a case, or a case from an adjective, it may be said, that philology +furnishes instances both ways. _Ours_ is a case derived, in syntax at +least, from an adjective. _Cujus_ (as in _cujum pecus_) and _sestertium_ +are Latin instances of a nominative case being evolved from an oblique one. + +s. 460. _Syntactic evidence._--If in Anglo-Saxon we found such expressions +as _dael min_=_pars mei_, _haelf thin_=_dimidium tui_, we should have a +reason, as far as it went, for believing in the existence of a genitive +with a partitive power. Such instances, however, have yet to be quoted; +whilst, even if quoted, they would not be _conclusive_. Expressions like +[Greek: sos pothos]=_desiderium tui_, [Greek: se promethiai] = +_providenti[^a] propter te_, show the extent to which the possessive +expression encroaches on the partitive. + +1. The words _min_ or _thin_, with a power anything rather than possessive, +would not for that reason be proved (on the strength of their meaning) to +be genitive cases rather than possessive pronouns; since such latitude in +the power of the possessive pronoun is borne out by the comparison of +languages--[Greek: pater hemon] (not [Greek: hemeteros]) in Greek is _pater +noster_ (not _nostrum_) in Latin. + +s. 461. 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, +_min_ra=_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 {388} 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 (real or apparent) +exist or not, they have not yet been brought forward. + +Such instances have yet to be quoted; whilst even if quoted, they would not +be conclusive. + +s. 462. A few references to the _Deutsche Grammatik_ will explain this. + +As early as the Moeso-Gothic stage of our language, we find rudiments of +the omission of the inflection. The possessive pronouns in the _neuter +singular_ sometimes take the inflection, sometimes appear as crude forms, +_nim thata badi theinata_=[Greek: aron sou ton krabbaton] (Mark ii. 9.) +opposed to _nim thata badi thein_ two verses afterwards. So also with +_mein_ and _meinata_.--Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 470. It is remarkable that +this omission should begin with forms so marked as those of the neuter +(_-ata_). It has, perhaps, its origin in the adverbial character of that +gender. + +_Old High German._--Here the nominatives, both masculine and feminine, lose +the inflection, whilst the neuter retains it--_thin dohter_, _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.--Deutsche +Grammatik, 474-478. + +_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_.--Deutsche Grammatik, 480. The influence of position should here be +noticed. Undoubtedly a place _after_ the substantive influences the +omission of the inflection. This appears in its _maximum_ in the Middle +High German. In Moeso-Gothic we have _mein leik_ and _leik +meinata_.--Deutsche Grammatik, 470. + +s. 463. Now by assuming (which is only a fair assumption) 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 {389} after their nouns), we explain these constructions by +a process which, in the mind of the present writer, is involved in fewer +difficulties than the opposite doctrine of a genitive case, in words where +it is not wanted, and with a termination which is foreign to it elsewhere. + +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_.--See pp. 251-253. + + * * * * * + + +{390} + +CHAPTER XXXVIII. + +ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE WEAK PRAETERITE. + +s. 464. The remote origin of the weak praeterite in _-d_ or _-t_, has been +considered by Grimm, in the Deutsche Grammatik. 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 we have something more, _viz._ the termination _-d[^e]dum_; as +_nas-id[^e]dum_, _nas-id[^e]duth_, _nas-id[^e]dum_, from _nas-ja_; +_s[^o]k-id[^e]dum_, _s[^o]k-id[^e]duth_, _s[^o]k-id[^e]dum_ from +_s[^o]k-ja_; _salb-[^o]d[^e]dum_, _salb-[^o]d[^e]duth_, +_s[^a]lb-[^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]d[^e]di_, _salb-[^o]d[^e]deits_, _salb-[^o]d[^e]deima_, +_salb-[^o]d[^e]deith_, _salb-[^o]d[^e]deina_. The English phrase, _we did +salve_, as compared with _salb-[^o]d[^e]dum_, is confirmatory of +this.--Deutsche Grammatik, i. 1042. + +s. 465. Some remarks of Dr. Trithen's on the Slavonic praeterite, in the +Transactions of the Philological Society, induce me 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]. + +l. 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; and +the fact of its being so accounts for {391} the apparently remarkable fact +of its inflection. 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 language, the Slavonic gives us the undoubted fact of an +active praeterite growing out of a passive participle (unless, indeed, we +chose to say that both are derived from a common origin); and as the +English participle and praeterite, when weak, are nearly identical, we have +reason for believing that the _d_, in the English active praeterite, is the +_t_ in the Latin passive participle. + +s. 466. The following extract exhibits Dr. Trithen's remarks on the +Slavonic verb:-- + + "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: + + _Yasam 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_." + + * * * * * + + +{392} + +PART V. + +SYNTAX. + +-------- + +CHAPTER I. + +ON SYNTAX IN GENERAL. + +s. 467. 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 studied syntax. + +Much that is considered by the generality of grammarians as syntax, can +either be omitted altogether, or else be better studied under another name. + +s. 468. To reduce a sentence to its elements, and to show that these +elements are, 1, the subject, 2, the predicate, 3, the copula; to +distinguish between simple terms and complex terms,--this is the department +of logic. + +To show the difference in force of expression, between such a sentence as +_great is Diana of the Ephesians_, and _Diana of the Ephesians is great_, +wherein the natural order of the subject and predicate is reversed, is a +point of rhetoric. + +_I am moving._--To state that such a combination as _I am moving_ is +grammatical, is undoubtedly a point of syntax. Nevertheless it is a point +better explained in a separate treatise, than in a work upon any particular +language. The expression proves its correctness by the simple fact of its +universal intelligibility. + +_I speaks._--To state that such a combination as _I speaks_, {393} +admitting that _I_ is exclusively the pronoun in the first person, and that +_speaks_ is exclusively the verb in the third, is undoubtedly a point of +syntax. Nevertheless, it is a point which is better explained in a separate +treatise, than in a work upon any particular language. An expression so +ungrammatical, involves a contradiction in terms, which unassisted common +sense can deal with. This position will again be reverted to. + +_There is to me a father._--Here we have a circumlocution equivalent to _I +have a father_. In the English language the circumlocution is unnatural. In +the Latin it is common. To determine this, is a matter of idiom rather than +of syntax. + +_I am speaking, I was reading._--There was a stage in the Gothic languages +when these forms were either inadmissible, or rare. Instead thereof, we had +the present tense, _I speak_, and the past, _I spoke_. The same is the case +with the classical languages in the classical stage. To determine the +difference in idea between these pairs of forms is a matter of metaphysics. +To determine at what period each idea came to have a separate mode of +expression is a matter of the _history_ of language. For example, _vas +l['a]isands_ appears in Ulphilas (Matt. vii. 29). There, it appears as a +rare form, and as a literal translation of the Greek [Greek: en didaskon] +(_was teaching_). The Greek form itself was, however, an unclassical +expression for [Greek: edidaske]. In Anglo-Saxon this mode of speaking +became common, and in English it is commoner still.--Deutsche Grammatik, +iv. 5. This is a point of idiom involved with one of history. + +_Swear by your sword--swear on your sword._--Which of these two expressions +is right? This depends on what the speaker means. If he mean _make your +oath in the full remembrance of the trust you put in your sword, and with +the imprecation, therein implied, that it shall fail you, or turn against +you if you speak falsely_, the former expression is the right one. But, if +he mean swear _with your hand upon your sword_, it is the latter which +expresses his meaning. To take a different view of this question, and to +write as a rule that {394} _verbs of swearing are followed by the +preposition on_ (or _by_) is to mistake the province of the grammar. +Grammar tells no one what he should wish to say. It only tells him how what +he wishes to say should be said. + +Much of the criticism on the use of _will_ and _shall_ is faulty in this +respect. _Will_ expresses one idea of futurity, _shall_ another. The syntax +of the two words is very nearly that of any other two. That one of the +words is oftenest used with a first person, and the other with a second, is +a fact, as will be seen hereafter, connected with the nature of _things_, +not of words. + +s. 469. The following question now occurs. If the history of forms of +speech be one thing, and the history of idioms another; if this question be +a part of logic, and that question a part of rhetoric; and if such truly +grammatical facts as government and concord are, as matters of common +sense, to be left uninvestigated and unexplained, what remains as syntax? +This is answered by the following distinction. There are two sorts of +syntax; theoretical and practical, scientific and historical, pure and +mixed. Of these, the first consists in the analysis and proof of those +rules which common practice applies without investigation, and common sense +appreciates, in a rough and gross manner, from an appreciation of the +results. This is the syntax of government and concord, or of those points +which find no place in the present work, for the following reason--_they +are either too easy or too hard for it_. If explained scientifically they +are matters of close and minute reasoning; if exhibited empirically they +are mere rules for the memory. Besides this they are universal facts of +languages in general, and not the particular facts of any one language. +Like other universal facts they are capable of being expressed +symbolically. That the verb (A) agrees with its pronoun (B) is an immutable +fact: or, changing the mode of expression, we may say that language can +only fulfil its great primary object of intelligibility when A = B. And so +on throughout. A formal syntax thus exhibited, and even devised _[`a] +priori_, is a philological possibility. And it is also the measure of +philological anomalies. {395} + +s. 470. _Pure syntax._--So much for one sort of syntax; _viz._, that +portion of grammar which bears the same relation to the practice of +language, that the investigation of the syllogism bears to the practice of +reasoning. The positions concerning it are by no means invalidated by such +phrases as _I speaks_ (for _I speak_), &c. In cases like these there is no +contradiction; since the peculiarity of the expression consists not in +joining two incompatible persons, but in mistaking a third person for a +first--_and as far as the speaker is concerned, actually making it so_. I +must here anticipate some objections that may be raised to these views, by +stating that I am perfectly aware that they lead to a conclusion which to +most readers must appear startling and to some monstrous, _viz._, to the +conclusion that _there is no such thing as bad grammar at all_; _that +everything is what the speaker chooses to make it_; _that a speaker may +choose to make any expression whatever, provided it answer the purpose of +language, and be intelligible_; _that, in short, whatever is is right_. +Notwithstanding this view of the consequence I still am satisfied with the +truth of the premises. I may also add that the terms _pure_ and _mixed_, +themselves suggestive of much thought on the subject which they express, +are not mine but Professor Sylvester's. + +s. 471. _Mixed syntax._--That, notwithstanding the previous limitations, +there is still a considerable amount of syntax in the English, as in all +other languages, may be seen from the sequel. If I undertook to indicate +the essentials of mixed syntax, I should say that they consisted in the +explanation of combinations _apparently_ ungrammatical; in other words, +that they ascertained the results of those causes which disturb the +regularity of the pure syntax; that they measured the extent of the +deviation; and that they referred it to some principle of the human +mind--so accounting for it. + +_I am going._--Pure syntax explains this. + +_I have gone._--Pure syntax will not explain this. Nevertheless, the +expression is good English. The power, however, of both _have_ and _gone_ +is different from the usual power of those words. This difference mixed +syntax explains. {396} + +s. 472. Mixed syntax requires two sorts of knowledge--metaphysical, and +historical. + +1. To account for such a fact in language as the expression _the man as +rides to market_, instead of the usual expression _the man who rides to +market_, is a question of what is commonly called metaphysics. The idea of +comparison is the idea common to the words _as_ and _who_. + +2. To account for such a fact in language as the expression _I have ridden +a horse_ is a question of history. We must know that when there was a sign +of an accusative case in English the word _horse_ had that sign; in other +words that the expression was, originally, _I have a horse as a ridden +thing_. These two views illustrate each other. + +s. 473. 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. 474. _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. 475. _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. 476. _Pleonasm_ (from the Greek _pleonazein_=_to be in excess_) occurs +in sentences like _the king, he reigns_. Here the word _he_ is +superabundant. In many _pleonastic_ {397} expressions we may suppose an +interruption of the sentence, and afterwards an abrupt renewal of it; as +_the king_--_he reigns_. + +The fact of the word _he_ neither qualifying nor explaining the word +_king_, distinguishes pleonasm from apposition. + +Pleonasm, as far as the view above is applicable, is reduced to what is, +apparently, its opposite, _viz._, ellipsis. + +_My banks, they are furnished_,--_the most straitest sect_,--these are +pleonastic expressions. In _the king, he reigns_, the word _king_ is in the +same predicament as in _the king, God bless him_. + +The double negative, allowed in Greek and Anglo-Saxon, but not admissible +in English, is pleonastic. + +The verb _do_, in _I do speak_, is _not_ pleonastic. In respect to the +sense it adds intensity. In respect to the construction it is not in +apposition, but in the same predicament with verbs like _must_ and +_should_, as in _I must go_, &c.; _i. e._ it is a verb followed by an +infinitive. This we know from its power in those languages where the +infinitive has a characteristic sign; as, in German, + + Die Augen _thaten_ ihm winken.--GOETHE. + +Besides this, _make_ is similarly used in Old English.--_But men make draw +the branch thereof, and beren him to be graffed at Babyloyne._--Sir J. +Mandeville. + +s. 477. _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. 478. _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_). {398} + +s. 479. _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. 480. _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_. {399} + +s. 481. _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 reasoning applies to phrases like _the two king Williams_. If we +say _the two kings William_, we must account for the phrase by apposition. + +s. 482. _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. 483. _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 language. 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, {400} 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. 484. _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. 485. _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. 486. _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. 487. _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_. {401} + +So in the expression _one long now_, the word _now_=_present time_. + +s. 488. 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._ + + * * * * * + + +{402} + +CHAPTER II. + +SYNTAX OF SUBSTANTIVES. + +s. 489. The phenomena of convertibility have been already explained. + +The remaining points connected with the syntax of substantives, are chiefly +points of either ellipsis, or apposition. + +_Ellipsis of substantives._--The historical view of phrases, like _Rundell +and Bridge's_, _St. Pauls'_, &c., shows that this ellipsis is common to the +English and the other Gothic languages. Furthermore, it shows that it is +met with in languages not of the Gothic stock; and, finally, that the class +of words to which it applies, is, there or thereabouts, the same generally. + +A. 1. The words most commonly understood, are _house_ and _family_, or +words reducible to them. In Latin, _Dianae_=_aedem Dianae_.--Deutsche +Grammatik, iv. 262. + +2. _Country, retinue._--Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 262. + +3. _Son_, _daughter_, _wife_, _widow_.--Deutsche Grammatik, iv. +262.--[Greek: Neleus Kodrou], Greek. + +B. The following phrases are referable to a different class of relations-- + +1. _Right and left_--supply _hand_. This is, probably, a real ellipsis. The +words _right_ and _left_, have not yet become true substantives; inasmuch +as they have no plural forms. In this respect, they stand in contrast with +_bitter_ and _sweet_; inasmuch as we can say _he has tasted both the +bitters and sweets of life_. Nevertheless, the expression can be refined +on. + +2. _All fours._--_To go on all fours._ No ellipsis. The word _fours_, is a +true substantive, as proved by its existence as a plural. + +From expressions like [Greek: poterion psuchrou] (Matt. xiv. 51), {403} +from the Greek, and _perfundit gelido_ (understand _latice_), from the +Latin, we find that the present ellipsis was used with greater latitude in +the classical languages than our own. + +s. 490. _Proper names can only be used in the singular number._--This is a +rule of logic, rather than of grammar. When we say _the four Georges_, _the +Pitts and Camdens_, &c., the words that thus take a plural form, have +ceased to be proper names. They either mean-- + +1. The persons called _George_, &c. + +2. Or, persons so like _George_, that they may be considered as identical. + +s. 491. _Collocation._--In the present English, the genitive case always +precedes the noun by which it is governed--_the man's hat_=_hominis +pileus_; never _the hat man's_=_pileus hominis_. + + * * * * * + + +{404} + +CHAPTER III. + +SYNTAX OF ADJECTIVES. + +s. 492. _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. 493. _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. 494. _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 {405} inflections to a +sufficient extent, the word meaning _like_ governs a dative case. + +2. That if ever we use in English any preposition at all to express +similitude, it is the preposition _to_--_like to me_, _like to death_, &c. + +Expressions like _full of meat_, _good for John_, are by no means instances +of the government of adjectives; the really governing words being the +prepositions _to_ and _for_ respectively. + +The most that can be said, in cases like these, is that particular +adjectives determine the use of particular prepositions--thus the +preposition _of_, generally follows the adjective _full_, &c. + +s. 495. 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 villanous_ _villanouser_. + +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. 496. The 9th Chapter of Part IV., should be read carefully. There, there +is indicated a refinement upon the current notions as to the power of the +comparative degree, {406} 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. 497. 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. + + * * * * * + + +{407} + +CHAPTER IV. + +SYNTAX OF PRONOUNS. + +s. 498. The syntax of substantives is, in English, simple, from the paucity +of its inflections, a condition which is unfavourable towards the evolution +of constructional complexities; the most remarkable exception being the +phenomenon of convertibility noticed above. + +The same is the case with adjectives. The want of inflexion simplifies +their syntax equally with that of the substantives. + +But with the pronouns this is not the case. Here we have-- + +1. Signs of gender; 2. Signs of case; 3. Signs of number, to a greater +extent, and with more peculiarities, than elsewhere. + +Furthermore, the pronouns exhibit in a great degree the phenomena of +conversion indicated in p. 400. + +s. 499. _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. 500. 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. {408} + +1. We cannot reduce _the queen's majesty_ to _the queen his majesty_. + +2. We cannot reduce _the children's bread_ to _the children his bread_. + +3. The Anglo-Saxon forms are in _-es_, not in _his_. + +4. The word _his_ itself must be accounted for; and that cannot be done by +assuming to be _he_ + _his_. + +5. The _-s_ in _father's_ is the _-is_ in _patris_, and the -[Greek: os] in +[Greek: pateros]. + +s. 501. 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. + + * * * * * + + +{409} + +CHAPTER V. + +THE TRUE PERSONAL PRONOUNS. + +s. 502. _Personal pronouns._--The use of the second person plural instead +of the second singular has been noticed in p. 246. This use of one number +for another is current throughout the Gothic languages. A pronoun so used +is conveniently called the _pronomen reverentiae_. + +s. 503. In English, however, there is a second change over and above the +change of number, _viz._ that of case. We not only say _ye_ instead of +_thou_, but _you_ instead of _ye_.--(See p. 245). + +Mr. Guest remarks, "that at one time the two forms _ye_ and _you_ seem to +have been nearly changing place in our language. + + As I have made _ye_ one, Lords, one remain; + So I grow stronger _you_ more honour gain. + + _Henry VIII._ 4, 2. + + What gain _you_ by forbidding it to teaze _ye_, + It now can neither trouble you nor please _ye_. + + DRYDEN." + +In German and the Danish the _pronomen reverentiae_ is got at by a change, +not of number, but of person--in other words, the pronoun of the _third_ +person is used instead of that of the _second_; just as if, in the English, +we said _will they walk_=_will you walk_, _will ye walk_, _wilt thou walk_. + +s. 504. _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_. It occurs more +frequently in the Latin than in the {410} English, and more frequently in +the Greek than in the Latin. + +s. 505. _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 two first persons, +but for the third as well. + +The exceptions to this rule are either poetical expressions, or imperative +moods. + + He sat _him_ down at a pillar's base.--BYRON. + + Sit thee down. + +s. 506. _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_) {411} 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. 507. _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_. + + * * * * * + + +{412} + +CHAPTER VI. + +ON THE SYNTAX OF THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS, AND THE PRONOUNS OF THE THIRD +PERSON. + +s. 508. Reasons have been given in p. 249, for considering the so-called +pronouns of the third person (_he_, _she_, _it_, _they_) demonstrative +rather than truly personal. + +s. 509. 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. 510. From p. 250, it may be seen 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. This has been +illustrated by Mr. Guest. + +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_ flavour, 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. + +{413} + +"The genitive _its_ is of late introduction into our language. Though used +by our dramatists and many of their cotemporaries, it does not occur in the +versions of our Bible, the substitute being _his_ or the compound term +_thereof_."--Phil. Trans., No. 25. + +s. 511. For the archaic and provincial use of _him_ and _he_ for _it_ see +_ibid._; remembering that the two cases are different. _His_ for _its_ is +an old form retained: _him_ and _he_ for _it_ are really changes of gender. + +s. 512. _Take them things away._--Here we have _them_ for _those_. The +expression, although not to be imitated, is explained by the originally +demonstrative power of _them_. + +Sometimes the expression is still more anomalous, and we hear the so-called +nominative case used instead of the accusative. In the expression _take +they things away_, the use of _they_ for _them_ (itself for _those_) is +similarly capable of being, down to a certain period of our language, +explained as an archaism. The original accusative was _tha_, and _tho_: the +form in _-m_ being dative. + +s. 513. _This_ and _that_.--The remarks upon the use of these words in +certain expressions is brought at once to the Latin scholar by the +quotation of the two following lines from Ovid, and the suggestion of a +well-known rule in the Eton Latin Grammar. + + _Quocunque aspicies nihil est nisi pontus et aer;_ + _Nubibus hic tumidus, fluctibus ille minax._ + +Here _hic_ (=_this_ or _the one_) refers to the antecedent last named (the +_air_); whilst _ille_ (=_that_ or _the other_) refers to the antecedent +first named (the _sea_). + +Now on the strength of this example, combined with others, it is laid down +as a rule in Latin that _hic_ (_this_) refers to the last-named antecedent, +_ille_ to the first-named. + +s. 514. What is the rule in English? + +Suppose we say _John's is a good sword and so is Charles's_; _this cut +through a thick rope, the other cut through an iron rod_. Or instead of +saying _this_ and _that_ we may say _the one_ and _the other_. It is clear +that, in determining to which of the {414} two swords the respective +demonstratives refer, the meaning will not help us at all, so that our only +recourse is to the rules of grammar; and it is the opinion of the present +writer that the rules of grammar will help us just as little. The Latin +rule is adopted by scholars, but still it is a Latin rule rather than an +English one. + +The truth is, that it is a question which no authority can settle; and all +that grammar can tell us is (what we know without it) that _this_ refers to +the name of the idea which is logically the most close at hand, and _that_ +to the idea which is logically the most distant. + +What constitutes nearness or distance of ideas, in other words, what +determines the sequence of ideas is another question. That the idea, +however, of sequence, and, consequently of logical proximity and logical +distance, is the fundamental idea in regard to the expressions in question +is evident from the very use of the words _this_ and _that_. + +Now the sequence of ideas is capable of being determined by two tests. + +1. The idea to which the name was last given, or (changing the expression) +the name of the last idea may be the nearest idea in the order of sequence, +and, consequently, the idea referred to by the pronoun of proximity. In +this case the idea closest at hand to the writer of the second line of the +couplet quoted above was the idea of the _atmosphere_ (_aer_), and it was, +consequently, expressed by (_this_) _hic_. + +2. Or the idea to which the name was first given, or (changing the +expression) the name of the first idea may be the nearest idea in the order +of sequence, and consequently the idea referred to it by the pronoun of +proximity; inasmuch as the idea which occurs first is the most prominent +one, and what is prominent appears near. In this case, the idea closest at +hand to the writer of the second line of the couplet quoted above would +have been the idea of the _sea_ (_pontus_), and it would, consequently, +have been the idea expressed by _this_ (_hic_). + +As Ovid, however, considered the idea at the end of the last half of one +sentence to be the idea nearest to the {415} beginning of the next, we have +him expressing himself as he does. On the other hand, it is easy to +conceive a writer with whom the nearest idea is the idea that led the way +to the others. + +As I believe that one and the same individual may measure the sequence of +his ideas sometimes according to one of these principles, and sometimes +according to another, I believe that all rules about the relations of +_this_ and _that_ are arbitrary. + +It is just a matter of chance whether a thinker take up his line of ideas +by the end or by the beginning. The analogies of such expressions as the +following are in favour of _this_, in English, applying to the _first_ +subject, _that_ to the _second_; since the word _attorney_ takes the place +of _this_, and applies to the first name of the two, _i. e._, to _Thurlow_. + + "It was a proud day for the bar when Lord North made Thurlow (1) and + (2) Wedderburn (1) Attorney (2) and Solicitor General."--_Mathias from + Lord Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors._ + + * * * * * + + +{416} + +CHAPTER VII. + +ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORD SELF. + +s. 515. The undoubted constructions of the word _self_, in the present +state of the cultivated English, are three-fold. + +1. _Government._--In _my-self_, _thy-self_, _our-selves_, and +_your-selves_, the construction is that of a common substantive with an +adjective or genitive case. _My-self_=_my individuality_, and is similarly +construed--_mea individualitas_ (or _persona_), or _mei individualitas_ (or +_persona_). + +2. _Apposition._--In _him-self_ and _them-selves_, when accusative, the +construction is that of a substantive in apposition with a pronoun. +_Him-self_=_him, the individual._ + +3. _Composition._--It is only, however, when _himself_ and _themselves_, +are in the accusative case, that the construction is appositional. When +they are used as nominatives, it must be explained on another principle. In +phrases like + + 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. 516. _Her-self._--The construction here is ambiguous. It is one of the +preceding constructions. Which, however it is, {417} 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. + +s. 517. In the exhibition of the second construction of the word _self_ it +was assumed that the case was a case of apposition, and that _self_ was +substantival in character. Nevertheless, this is by no means a necessary +phenomenon. _Self_ might, as far as its power is determined by its +construction alone, in words like _himself_ as easily be an adjective as a +substantive. In which case the construction would be a matter, not of +apposition, but of _agreement_. To illustrate this by the Latin language, +_himself_, might equal either _eum personam_ (_him, the person_), or _eum +personalem_ (_him personal_). The evidence, however, of the forms like +_myself_, as well as other facts adduceable from comparative philology, +prove the substantival character of _self_. On the other hand, it ought not +to be concealed that another word, whereof the preponderance of the +adjectival over the substantival power is undoubted, is found in the Old +English, with just the same inconsistency as the word _self_; _i.e._, +sometimes in government (like a substantive), and sometimes in either +concord or apposition, like a word which may be _either_ substantive or +adjective. This word is _one_; the following illustrations of which are +from Mr. Guest.--_Phil. Trans. No. 22._ + + In this world wote I no knight, + Who durst _his one_ with hym fight. + + _Ipomedon_, 1690. + + thah ha _hire ane_ were + Ayein so kene keisere and al his kine riche. + + _St. Catherine_, 90. + + Though she _alone_ were + Against so fierce a kaiser, and all his kingdom. + +Here _his one_, _her one_, mean _his singleness_, _her singleness_. + + He made his mone + Within a garden all _him one_. + + GOWER, _Confess. Amant._ + +{418} + +Here _him one_ = _himself_ in respect to its construction. + +s. 518. As to the inflection of the word _-self_, all its compounds are +substantives; inasmuch as they all take plural forms as far as certain +logical limitations will allow them to do so--_ourselves_, _yourselves_, +_themselves_. + +_Myself_, _thyself_, _himself_, _itself_, and _herself_, are naturally +singular, and under no circumstances can become plural. + +_Themselves_ is naturally plural, and under no circumstances can become +singular. + +_Ourselves_ and _yourselves_ are naturally plural; yet under certain +circumstances they become singular. + +_a._ Just as men say _we_ for _I_, so may they say _our_ for _my_. + +_b._ Just as men say _you_ for _thou_, so may they say _your_ for _thy_. + +In respect to the inflection in the way of case, there are no logical +limitations whatever. There is nothing against the existence of a genitive +form _self's_ except the habit of the English language not to use one, +founded on the little necessity for so doing.--_Are you sure this is your +own?_ _Yes, I am sure it is my own self's._ Such an expression is both +logic and grammar. + +When an adjective intervenes between _self_ and its personal pronoun the +construction is always in the way of government; in other words, the +personal pronoun is always put in the genitive case. + + His own self, _not_ him own self. + Their own selves, _not_ them own selves. + +s. 519. The construction of _self_ and a personal pronoun with a verb may +be noticed in this place. It is only in the case of the two pronouns of the +singular number that any doubt can arise. + +1. When _myself_ or _thyself_ stands alone, the verb that follows is in the +third person--_myself is_ (not _am_) _weak_, _thyself is_ (not _art_) +_weak_. Here the construction is just the same as in the proposition _my +body is weak_. + +2. When _myself_ or _thyself_ is preceded by _I_ or _thou_, the verb that +follows is in the first person--_I, myself, am_ (not _is_) _weak_; _thou, +thyself, art_ (not _is_) _weak_. + + * * * * * + + +{419} + +CHAPTER VIII. + +ON THE POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. + +s. 520. The possessive pronouns fall into two classes. The first class +contains the forms connected, partially in their etymology and wholly in +their syntax, with _my_ and _thy_, &c. The second class contains the forms +connected, partially in their etymology and wholly in their syntax, with +_mine_ and _thine_, &c. + +The first class is the class of what may be called the _oblique_ +possessives; the name being founded upon the etymological fact of their +being connected with the oblique cases of the pronominal inflection.--_My_, +_thy_, _his_ (as in _his book_), _her_, _its_ (as in _its book_), _our_, +_your_, _their_. These are conveniently considered as the equivalents to +the Latin forms _mei_, _tui_, _ejus_, _nostrum_, _vestrum_, _eorum_. + +The second class is the class of what may be called the _absolute_ +possessives; the name being founded upon the syntactic fact of their being +able to form the term of a proposition by themselves; as _whose is this?_ +_Mine_ (not _my_).--_Mine_, _thine_, _his_ (as _in the book is his_), +_hers_, _ours_, _yours_, _theirs_ are conveniently considered as the +equivalents to the Latin forms _meus, mea, meum_; _tuus, tua, tuum_; _suus, +sua, suum_; _noster, nostra, nostrum_; _vester, vestra, vestrum_. How far +either or both of these two classes of pronouns are cases, or adjectives, +is a point of etymology that has already been noticed (Part IV., chap. 37). + +How far either or both are cases or adjectives is, in syntax, a matter of +indifference. + +s. 521. There is, however, a palpable 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 {420} 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, complimentary to each other when taken in +their two forms. + +In the absolute construction of a genitive case, the term is formed by the +single word only so far as the _expression_ is concerned. A substantive is +always _understood_ from what has preceded.--_This discovery is +Newton's_=_this discovery is Newton's discovery._ + +The same with adjectives.--_This weather is fine_=_this weather is fine +weather._ + +And the same with absolute pronouns.--_This hat is mine_=_this hat is my +hat_; and _this is a hat of mine_=_this is a hat of my hats_. + +In respect to all matters of syntax considered exclusively, it is so +thoroughly a matter of indifference whether a word be an adjective or a +genitive case that Wallis considers the {421} 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. + + * * * * * + + +{422} + +CHAPTER IX. + +THE RELATIVE PRONOUNS. + +s. 522. The word _that_, although originally, when a demonstrative pronoun, +a neuter singular, is now used as a relative for all genders, and both +numbers. + + 1. He _that_ spoke.--_Masculine gender._ + 2. She _that_ spoke.--_Feminine gender._ + 3. They _that_ fought.--_Plural number._ + 4. The man _that_ I struck.--_Objective case._ + +s. 523. Etymologically, _which_ is no true neuter of _who_, but a compound +word. It is used, however, with less latitude than _that_. The beginning of +the Lord's Prayer exhibits it in combination with a masculine noun. +Generally, however, it is confined to the neuter gender; in which it is +common to both numbers. + + 1. The dagger _which_ stabbed Caesar.--_Nominative singular._ + 2. The daggers _which_ stabbed Caesar.--_Nominative plural._ + 3. The dagger _which_ I grasp.--_Objective singular._ + 4. The daggers _which_ I grasp.--_Objective plural._ + +s. 524. _Which_ has so nearly replaced _what_ that the general use of this +last word with its proper power, as a neuter relative, is, in the present +English, vulgar, _e.g._, + + 1. The dagger _what_ stabbed Caesar. + 2. The dagger _what_ I grasp. + +In one case, however, _what_ is used as a true relative, _viz._, when the +antecedent is either _this_ or _that_. + + This is _what_ I mean; _not_, this is _which_ I mean. + That is _what_ I mean; _not_, that is _which_ I mean. + +{423} + +s. 525. The word _as_, properly a conjunction, is occasionally used as a +relative--_the man_ as _rides to market_. + +This expression is not to be imitated. It ought, however, to be explained. +_As_ is a conjunction denoting comparison. The ideas of comparison and +equivalence are allied. The relative is _ex vi termini_ the equivalent, in +one part of a sentence, to the antecedent in another. + + (1) The man--(2) who speaks. + +Here _who_=_man_. + + (1) As white--(2) as snow. + +Here _snow_=_white_. + +s. 526. It is necessary that the relative be in the same _gender_ as the +antecedent--_the man who_--_the woman who_--_the thing which_. + +s. 527. It is necessary that the relative be in the same _number_ with the +antecedent. As, however, _who_, _which_, _whom_, are equally singular and +plural, and as _what_, which is really singular, is not used as a relative, +the application of this law is limited to the word _whose_. Now _whose_ is, +etymologically, a genitive case, and a genitive case of the singular +number. Hence the expression _the men whose daggers stabbed Caesar_ can +only be justified by considering that the word _whose_ is plural as well as +singular. Such is the case. If not the expression is as illogical as +_homines_ cujus _sicae_, &c. would be in Latin. + +s. 528. 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. 529. 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 {424} 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. + +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. 530. _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, {425} the preceding +is one of the most unequivocal kind--the word which connects the two +propositions being wanting. + +s. 531. One or two points connected with the construction of those +sentences wherein relative pronouns occur, are necessary to be familiarly +understood in order for us to see our way clearly to certain real and +apparent anomalies in the syntax of this class of words. + +1. Every sentence wherein a relative occurs, is complex, _i.e._, it +consists of two propositions--_the man who rides is come_=(1) _the man is +come_; (2) _who rides_. Here the relative _who_ has no meaning in itself, +but takes a meaning from the noun of the preceding clause. + +2. _The relative is the demonstrative or personal pronoun under another +form._--The two propositions (1) _the man is come_; (2) _who rides_=(1) +_the man is come_; (2) _he rides_. + +3. _The demonstrative or personal pronoun is the substantive in another +form._--The two propositions (1) _the man is come_; (2) _he rides_=(1) _the +man is come_; (2) _the man rides_. + +4. Hence the relative is the equivalent to a demonstrative pronoun, or to a +substantive, indifferently. + +5. But the relative is the equivalent to the pronoun and substantive, and +_something more_. In sentences like + + The man is come--he rides-- + The man is come--the man rides. + +The identity between the person mentioned in the two propositions is +implied, not expressed. This the relative _expresses_; and hence its use in +languages. + +6. From these observations we get a practical rule for determining doubtful +constructions. + +_a._ Reduce the sentence to the several propositions (which are never less +than two) which it contains. + +_b._ Replace the relative by its equivalent personal or demonstrative +pronoun, or by its equivalent substantive. + +_c._ The case of the demonstrative or substantive, is the case of the +relative also. + +By applying this rule to such expressions as + + Satan, than _whom_ + None higher sat, thus spake + +{426} we find them, _according to the current etymology_, incorrect-- + + Satan spake--none sat higher than he sat. + Satan spake--none sat higher than Satan sat. + +Hence the expression should be, + + Satan than _who_ + None higher sat. + +_Observe._--The words, _according to the current etymology_, indicate an +explanation which, rightly or wrongly, has been urged in favour of +expressions like the one in question, and which will be noticed in a future +chapter. + +s. 532. _Observe._--That three circumstances complicate the syntax of the +relative pronoun. + +1. The elliptic form of the generality of the sentences wherein it follows +the word _than_. + +2. The influence of the oblique interrogation. + +3. The influence of an omitted relative. + +s. 533. This last finds place in the present chapter. + +_When the relative and antecedent are in different cases, and the relative +is omitted, the antecedent is sometimes put in the case of the relative._ + + He whom I accuse has entered. + +Contracted according to p. 424. + + He I accuse has entered. + +Changed, according to the present section,-- + + Him I accuse has entered. + +And so (as shown by Mr. Guest, _Philological Transactions_), Shakspeare has +really written,-- + + _Him_ I accuse, + The city gates by this has entered. + + _Coriolanus_, v. 5. + + Better leave undone, than by our deeds acquire + Too high a fame, when _him_ we serve's away. + + _Antony and Cleopatra_, iii. 1. + +The reason of this is clear. The verb that determines {427} the case of the +relative is brought in contact with the antecedent, and the case of the +antecedent is accommodated to the case of the relative. + +The Greek phrase, [Greek: chromai bibliois hois echo], is an instance of +the converse process. + +s. 534. _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 who slew Goliah._ This is unexceptionable. + +2. _Solomon the son of David who built the temple._ This is exceptionable. + +Nevertheless, it is defensible, on the supposition that +_Solomon-the-son-of-David_ is a single many-worded name. + + * * * * * + + +{428} + +CHAPTER X. + +ON THE INTERROGATIVE PRONOUN. + +s. 535. 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. 536. Nevertheless, such expressions as _whom do they say that it is?_ +are common, especially in oblique questions. The following examples are Mr. +Guest's.--_Philological Transactions._ + + "And he axed hem 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. + +{429} + + + "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. + +Two circumstances encourage this confusion. 1. The presence of a second +verb, which takes the appearance of a governing verb. 2. The omission of a +really oblique antecedent or relative. 3. The use of accusative for +nominative forms in the case of personal pronouns. + +s. 537. _The presence of a second verb_, &c.--_Tell_ me _whom_ she _is_. +Here _tell_ is made to govern _whom_, instead of _whom_ being left, as +_who_, to agree with _she_. + +s. 538. _The omission_, &c.--Tell me _whom_ she is you _love_. Here the +full construction requires a second pronoun--tell me _who_ she is _whom_ +you _love_; or else, tell me _her whom_ you love. + +s. 539. To the question, _who is_ this? many would answer not _I_, but +_me_. This confusion of the case in the answer favours a confusion of case +in the question. + +It is clear that much of this reasoning applies to the relative powers of +_who_, as well as to the interrogative. + +But, it is possible that there may be no incorrectness at all: insomuch as +_whom_ may have become a true nominative. Mr. Guest has truly remarked that +such is the case in the Scandinavian language, where _hve-m_=_who_=_qui_. + +This view, if true, justifies the use of _whom_ after the conjunctions +_than_ and _as_; so that the expression,-- + + Satan than _whom_ + None higher sat, + +may be right. + +Nevertheless, it does not justify such expressions as-- + + None sit higher than _me_. + None sit higher than _thee_. + None sit higher than _us_. + None sit higher than _her_. + +{430} + +The reason of this is clear. _Whom_ is supposed to be admissible, not +because the sentence admits an accusative case; but because custom has +converted it into a nominative. For my own part, I doubt the application of +the Danish rule to the English language. Things may be going that way, but +they have not, as yet, gone far enough. + + * * * * * + + +{431} + +CHAPTER XI. + +THE RECIPROCAL CONSTRUCTION. + +s. 540. 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. The first is +without the object, the second without the verb. That the verb must be in +the plural (or dual) number, that one of the nouns must be in the +nominative case, and that the other must be objective, is self-evident from +the structure of the sentence; such being the conditions of the expression +of the idea. An aposiopesis takes place after a plural verb, and then there +follows a clause wherein the verb is supplied from what went before. + +s. 541. 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 {432} 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_. + +The Lapplandic, and, probably other languages, have the same elements of +perspicuity. + + * * * * * + + +{433} + +CHAPTER XII. + +THE INDETERMINATE PRONOUNS. + +s. 542. 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.--Deutsche Grammatik. + +In the Old English, the form _man_ often lost the _-n_, and became +_me_.--Deutsche Grammatik. This form is also extinct. + +The present indeterminate pronoun is _one_; as, _one says_=_they say_=_it +is said_=_man sagt_, German=_on dit_, French=_si dice_, Italian. + +It has been stated in p. 257, that the indeterminate pronoun _one_ has no +etymological connection with the numeral _one_; but that it is derived from +the French _on_=_homme_=_homo_=_man_; and that it has replaced the Old +English, _man_ or _me_. + +s. 543. Two other pronouns, or, to speak more in accordance with the +present habit of the English language, one {434} pronoun, and one adverb of +pronominal origin are also used indeterminately viz., _it_ and _there_. + +s. 544. _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. 545. _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 _there_ and +_it_ misleads us; the expression being illogical. + +Furthermore, although a predicate, _there_ always stands in the beginning +of propositions, _i.e._, in the place of the subject. This also misleads. + +s. 546. 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. + + * * * * * + + +{435} + +CHAPTER XIII. + +THE ARTICLES. + +s. 547. 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. + + * * * * * + + +{436} + +CHAPTER XIV. + +THE NUMERALS. + +s. 548. 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 thousandth-and-first_ are incorrect. They mean +neither one thing nor another: 1001st being expressed by _the +thousand-and-first_, and 1000th + 1st being expressed by _the thousandth +and the first_. + +Here it may be noticed that, although I never found it to do so, the word +_odd_ is capable of taking an ordinal form. The _thousand-and-odd-th_ is as +good an expression as the _thousand-and-eight-th_. + +The construction of phrases like the _thousand-and-first_ is the same +construction as we find in the _king-of-Saxony's army_. + +s. 549. 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. + + * * * * * + + +{437} + +CHAPTER XV. + +ON VERBS IN GENERAL. + +s. 550. 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_. +{438} + +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. 551. _The auxiliary verbs_ will be noticed fully in Chapter XXIII. + +s. 552. 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. + +This does not apply to the infinitive mood. The infinitive mood of the +so-called verb substantive is a noun; not, however, because it is a verb +substantive, but because it is an infinitive mood. + +For the _impersonal_ verbs see Part IV., Chapter 27. + + * * * * * + + +{439} + +CHAPTER XVI. + +THE CONCORD OF VERBS. + +s. 553. 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. 554. 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. {440} + +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. 555. 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._ + +{441} + +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 {442} 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. 556. _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_ (p. 434), the word +which comes first is always the subject, until the contrary be proved. +{443} + +_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. 557. _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]. + + * * * * * + + +{444} + +CHAPTER XVII. + +ON THE GOVERNMENT OF VERBS. + +s. 558. 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 (or government) sometimes takes the appearance +of the objective: inasmuch as intransitive verbs are frequently followed by +a substantive; which substantive is in the objective case. Nevertheless, +this is no proof of government. For a verb to be capable of governing an +objective case, it must be a verb signifying an action affecting an object: +and {445} if there be no such object, there is no room for any objective +government. _To break the sleep of the righteous_, is to _affect, by +breaking, the sleep of the righteous_: but, _to sleep the sleep of the +righteous_, is not to _affect by sleeping the sleep of the righteous_; +since the act of sleeping is an act that affects no object whatever. It is +a _state_. We may, indeed, give it the appearance of a transitive verb, as +we do when we say, _the opiate slept the patient_, meaning thereby, _lulled +to sleep_; but the transitive character is only apparent. + +_To sleep the sleep of the righteous_ is to _sleep in agreement with_--or +_according to_--or _after the manner of_--_the sleep of the righteous_, and +the construction is adverbial. + +In the grammars of the classical languages, the following rule is +exceptionable--_Quodvis verbum admittit accusativum nominis sibi cognati_. +It does so; but it governs the accusative case not objectively but modally. + +s. 559. Modal verbs may be divided into a multiplicity of divisions. Of +such, it is not necessary in English to give more than the following +four:-- + +1. _Appositional._--As, _she walks a queen_: _you consider me safe_. The +appositional construction is, in reality, a matter of concord rather than +of gender. It will be considered more fully in the following section. + +2. _Traditive._--As, _I give the book to you_=_do librum tibi_. _I teach +you the lesson_=[Greek: didasko se ten didaskalian]. In all traditive +expressions there are three ideas; (1.) an agent, (2.) an object, (3.) a +person, or thing, to which the object is made over, or transferred, by the +agent. For this idea the term dative is too restricted: since in Greek and +some other languages, both the name of the object conveyed, and the name of +the person to whom it is conveyed are, frequently, put in the accusative +case. + +3. _Instrumental._--As, _I fight with a sword_=_pugno ense_=_feohte +sweorde_,--Anglo-Saxon. + +4. _Emphatic._--As, _he sleeps the sleep of the righteous_. + +s. 560. _Verb and nominative case._--No verb governs a nominative case. The +appositional construction _seems_ to require such a form of government; but +the form is only apparent. {446} + + It is I. + It is thou. + It is he, &c. + +Here, although the word _is_ is _followed_ by a nominative case, it by no +means governs one--at least not as a verb. + +It has been stated above that the so-called verb substantive is only a verb +for the purposes of etymology. In syntax, it is only a part of a verb, +_i. e._, the copula. + +Now this fact changes the question of the construction in expressions like +_it is I_, &c., from a point of government to one of concord. In the +previous examples the words _it_, _is_, and _I_, were, respectively, +_subject_, _copula_, and _predicate_; and, as it is the function of the +copula to denote the agreement between the predicate and the subject, the +real point to investigate is the nature of the concord between these two +parts of a proposition. + +Now the predicate need agree with the subject in case only. + +1. It has no necessary concord in gender--_she is a man in courage_--_he is +a woman in effeminacy_--_it is a girl_. + +2. It has no necessary concord in number--_sin is the wages of death_--_it +is these that do the mischief_. + +3. It has no necessary concord in person--_I am he whom you mean_. + +4. It _has_, however, a necessary concord in case. Nothing but a nominative +case can, by itself, constitute a term of either kind--subject or +predicate. Hence, both terms must be in the nominative, and, consequently, +both in the same case. Expressions like _this is for me_ are elliptic. The +logical expression is _this is a thing for me_. + +_Rule._--The predicate must be of the same case with its subject. + +Hence--The copula instead of determining[60] a case expresses a concord. + +{447} + +_Rule 1._--All words connected with a nominative case by the copula +(_i.e._, the so-called verb-substantive) must be nominative.--_It is I_; _I +am safe_. + +_Rule 2._--All words in apposition with a word so connected must be +nominative.--It is difficult to illustrate this from the English language +from our want of inflexions. In Latin, however, we say _vocor Johannes_=_I +am called John_, not _vocor Johannem_. Here the logical equivalent is _ego +sum vocatus Johannes_--where-- + +1. _Ego_, is nominative because it is the subject. + +2. _Vocatus_ is nominative because it is the predicate agreeing with the +subject. + +3. _Johannes_, is nominative because it is part of the predicate, and in +apposition with _vocatus_. + +N.B. Although in precise language _Johannes_ is said to agree with +_vocatus_ rather than to be in apposition with it, the expression, as it +stands, is correct. Apposition is the agreement of substantives, agreement +the apposition of adjectives. + +_Rule 3._--All verbs which, when resolved into a copula and participle, +have their participle in apposition (or agreeing) with the noun, are in the +same condition as simple copulas--_she walks a queen_=_she is walking a +queen_=_illa est incedens regina_. + +_Rule 4._--The construction of a subject and copula preceded by the +conjunction _that_, is the same in respect to the predicate by which they +are followed as if the sentence were an isolated proposition. + +This rule determines the propriety of the expression--_I believe that it is +he_ as opposed to the expression _I believe that it is him_. + +_I believe_=_I am believing_, and forms one proposition. + +_It is he_, forms a second. + +_That_, connects the two; but belongs to neither. + +{448} + +Now, as the relation between the subject and predicate of a proposition +cannot be affected by a word which does not belong to it, the construction +is the same as if the propositions were wholly separate. + +N.B. The question (in cases where the conjunction _that_ is not used), as +to the greater propriety of the two expressions--_I believe it to be +him_--_I believe it to be he_--has yet to be considered. + +s. 561. _The verb and genitive case._--No verb in the present English +governs a genitive case. In Anglo-Saxon certain verbs did: _e.g._, _verbs +of ruling_ and others--_weolde thises middangeardes_=_he ruled_ (_wealded_) +_this earth's_. Genitive cases, too, governed by a verb are common both in +Latin and Greek. _To eat of the fruit of the tree_ is no genitive +construction, however much it may be equivalent to one. _Fruit_ is in the +objective case, and is governed not by the verb but by the preposition +_of_. + +s. 562. _The verb and accusative._--All transitive verbs govern an +accusative case,--_he strikes me_, _thee_, _him_, _her_, _it_, _us_, _you_, +_them_. + +_The verb and dative case._--The word _give_, and a few others, govern a +dative case. Phrases like _give it him_, _whom shall I give it_, are +perfectly correct, and have been explained above. The prepositional +construction _give it_ to _him_,--_to whom shall I give it?_ is +unnecessary. The evidence of this is the same as in the construction of the +adjective _like_. + +s. 563. _The partitive construction._--Certain transitive verbs, the action +whereof is extended not to the whole, but only to a part of their object, +are followed by the preposition of and an objective case. _To eat of the +fruit of the tree_=_to eat a part_ (or _some_) _of the fruit of the tree_: +_to drink of the water of the well_=_to drink a part_ (or _some_) _of the +water of the well_. It is not necessary, here, to suppose the ellipsis of +the words _part_ (or _some_). The construction is a construction that has +grown out of the partitive power of the genitive case; for which case the +preposition _of_, followed by the objective, serves as an equivalent. + +s. 564. It has been already stated that forms like _I believe_ {449} _it to +be him_, and forms like _I believe it to be he_, had not been investigated. +Of these, the former is, logically, correct. + +Here, the word, _to be_, is, in respect to its power, a noun. + +As such, it is in the accusative case after the verb _believe_. + +With this accusative infinitive, _it_ agrees, as being part of the same +complex idea. And _him_ does the same. + +In English we have two methods of expressing one idea; the method in +question, and the method by means of the conjunction, _that_. + + 1. _I believe it to be him._ + 2. _I believe that it is he._ + +In the first example, _it_ is the object; and _it-to-be-him_ forms one +complex term. + +In the second, _he_ agrees with _it_; and _it_ is the subject of a +separate, though connected, proposition. + +Of these two forms the Latin language adopts but one, _viz._, the +former,--_credo eum esse_, not _credo quod illud est ille_. + +s. 565. _The expression_ ob differentiam.--The classical languages, +although having but one of the two previous forms, are enabled to effect a +variation in the application of it, which, although perhaps illogical, is +convenient. When the speaker means himself, the noun that follows, _esse_, +or [Greek: einai], is nominative,--[Greek: phemi einai despotes]=_I say +that I am the master_: _ait fuisse celerrimus_=_he says that he himself was +the swiftest_--but, [Greek: phemi einai despoten]=_I say that he_ (some one +else) _is the master_; and _ait fuisse celerrimum_=_he says that he_ (some +one else) _is the swiftest_. This, though not adopted in English, is +capable of being adopted,--_He believes it to be he_ (_i.e._, the speaker) +_who invented the machine_; but, _he believes it to be him_ (that is, +another person) _who invented it_. + +s. 566. When the substantive infinitive, _to be_, is preceded by a passive +participle, combined with the verb substantive, the construction is +nominative,--_it is believed to be he who spoke_, not _it is believed to be +him_.--Here there are two propositions: + + 1. It is believed.-- + 2. Who spoke. + +{450} Now, here, _it_ is the subject, and, as such, nominative. But it is +also the equivalent to _to be he_, which must be nominative as well. _To be +he is believed_=_esse-ille creditur_,--or, changing the mode of proof,-- + +1. _It_ is the subject and nominative. + +2. _Believed_ is part of the predicate; and, consequently, nominative also. + +3. _To be he_ is a subordinate part of the predicate, in apposition with +_believed_--_est creditum, nempe entitas ejus_. Or, _to be he is +believed_=_esse-ille est creditum_. + +As a general expression for the syntax of copulas and appositional +constructions, the current rule, that _copulas and appositional verbs must +be followed by the same case by which they are preceded_, stands good. + + * * * * * + + +{451} + +CHAPTER XVIII. + +ON THE PARTICIPLES. + +s. 567. 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?_ + +For the extent to which the view differs from that of Priestley, and still +more with that of Mr. Guest, see _Phil. Trans._, 25. + +s. 568. 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. + + * * * * * + + +{452} + +CHAPTER XIX. + +ON THE MOODS. + +s. 569. 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. 570. The construction, however, of English infinitives is twofold. (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_. + +This 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. + + Thou shalt not _see_ thy brother's ox or his ass _fall_ down by the + way. + + We _heard_ him _say_ I will destroy the temple. + + {453} I _feel_ the pain _abate_. + + He _bid_ her _alight_. + + I would fain _have_ any one _name_ to me that tongue that any one can + speak as he should do by the rules of grammar. + +This, in the present English, is the rarer of the two constructions. + +When a verb is followed by another, preceded by the preposition _to_, the +construction must be considered to have grown out of the so-called gerund, +_i.e._, the form in _-nne_, _i.e._, the dative case--_I begin to move_. +This is the case with the great majority of English verbs. + +The following examples, from the Old English, of the gerundial construction +where we have, at present, the objective, are Mr. Guest's. + + 1. Eilrid _myght nought to stand_ tham ageyn. + + _R. Br._ + + 2. Whether feith schall _mowe to save_ him? + + WICLIF, _James_ ii. + + 3. My woful child what flight _maist thou to take_? + + HIGGINS, _Lady Sabrine_, 4. + + 4. Never to retourne no more, + Except he _would_ his life _to loose_ therfore. + + HIGGINS, _King Albanaet_, 6. + + 5. He said he _could not to forsake_ my love. + + HIGGINS, _Queen Elstride_, 20. + + 6. The mayster _lette_ X men and mo + _To wende_. + + _Octavian_, 381. + + 7. And though we owe the fall of Troy requite, + Yet _let_ revenge thereof from gods _to_ lighte. + + HIGGINS, _King Albanaet_, 16. + + 8. _I durst_, my lord, _to wager_ she is honest. + + _Othello_, iv. 2. + + 9. Whom, when on ground, she grovelling _saw to roll_, + She ran in haste, &c. + + _F. Q._ iv. 7, 32. + +{454} + +s. 571. Imperatives have three peculiarities. (1.) They can only, in +English, be used in the second person: (2.) They take pronouns after, +instead of before, them: (3.) They often omit the pronoun altogether. + +s. 572. For the syntax of subjunctives, see the Chapter on Conjunctions. + + * * * * * + + +{455} + +CHAPTER XX. + +ON THE TENSES. + +s. 573. 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. 574. 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. + + * * * * * + + +{456} + +CHAPTER XXI. + +SYNTAX OF THE PERSONS OF VERBS. + +s. 575. For the impersonal verbs see Part IV. Chapter 27. + +s. 576. _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 {457} 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. + +The reasons for these rules will appear in the Chapter on Conjunctions. + +Now, provided that they are correct, it is clear that the English language +knows nothing about the relative degrees of dignity between these three +pronouns; since its habit is to make the verb agree with the one which is +placed first--whatever may be the person. I am strongly inclined to believe +that the same is the case in Latin; in which case (in the sentence _ego et +Balbus sustulimus manus_) _sustulimus_ agrees, in person, with _ego_, not +because the first person is the worthiest, but because it comes first in +the proposition. That the greater supposed worth of the first person may be +a reason for putting it first in the proposition is likely enough. + + * * * * * + + +{458} + +CHAPTER XXII. + +ON THE VOICES OF VERBS. + +s. 577. 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_. + + * * * * * + + +{459} + +CHAPTER XXIII. + +ON THE AUXILIARY VERBS. + +s. 578. 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 inflectional or +non-inflectional powers._--Inflectional auxiliaries are those that may +either replace or be replaced by an inflection. Thus--_I am struck_=the +Latin _ferior_, and the Greek [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 {460} +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_ {461} _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. 579. The following is an exhibition of some of the _times_ in which an +action may take place, as found in either the English or other languages, +expressed by the use of either an inflection or a combination. + +_Time considered in one point only_-- + +1. _Present._--An action taking place at the time of speaking, and +incomplete.--_I am beating_, _I am being beaten_. _Not_ expressed, in +English, by the simple present tense; since _I beat_ means _I am in the +habit of beating_. + +2. _Aorist._--An action that took place in past time, or previous to the +time of speaking, and which has no connection with the time of +speaking.--_I struck_, _I was stricken_. Expressed, in English, by the +praeterite, in Greek by the aorist. The term aorist, from the Greek [Greek: +a-oristos]=_undefined_, is a convenient name for this sort of time. + +3. _Future._--An action that has neither taken place, nor is taking place +at the time of speaking, but which is stated as one which _will_ take +place.--Expressed, in English, by the combination of _will_ or _shall_ with +an infinitive mood. In Latin and Greek by an inflection. _I shall_ (or +_will_) _speak_, [Greek: lek-so], _dica-m_. {462} + +None of these expressions imply more than a single action; in other words, +they have no relation to any second action occurring simultaneously with +them, before them, or after them.--_I am speaking now_, _I spoke +yesterday_, _I shall speak to-morrow_. Of course, the act of mentioning +them is not considered as an action related to them in the sense here +meant. + +By considering past, present, or future actions not only by themselves, but +as related to other past, present, or future actions, we get fresh +varieties of expression. Thus, an act may have been going on, when some +other act, itself an act of past time, interrupted it. Here the action +agrees with a present action, in being incomplete; but it differs from it +in having been rendered incomplete by an action that has past. This is +exactly the case with the-- + +4. _Imperfect._--_I was reading when he entered._ Here we have two acts; +the act of _reading_ and the act of _entering_. Both are past as regards +the time of speaking, but both are present as regards each other. This is +expressed, in English, by the past tense of the verb substantive and the +present participle, _I was speaking_; and in Latin and Greek by the +imperfect tense, _dicebam_, [Greek: etupton]. + +5. _Perfect._--Action past, but connected with the present by its effects +or consequences.--_I _have_ written, and here is the letter._ Expressed in +English by the auxiliary verb _have_, followed by the _participle passive +in the accusative case and neuter gender of the singular number_. The Greek +expresses this by the reduplicate perfect: [Greek: te-tupha]=_I have +beaten._ + +6. _Pluperfect._--Action past, but connected with a second action, +subsequent to it, _which is also past_.--_I _had_ written when he _came_ +in._ + +7. _Future present._--Action future as regards the time of speaking, +present as regards some future time.--_I shall _be speaking_ about this +time to-morrow._ + +8. _Future praeterite._--Action future as regards the time of speaking, +past as regards some future time.--_I shall _have spoken_ by this time +to-morrow._ {463} + +These are the chief expressions which are simply determined by the +relations of actions to each other, and to the time of speaking, either in +the English or any other language. But over and above the simple idea of +_time_, there may be others superadded: thus, the phrase, I do _speak_ +means, not only that _I am in the habit of speaking_, but that I also +_insist_ upon it being understood that I am so. + +Again, an action that is mentioned as either taking place, or as having +taken place at a given time, may take place again and again. Hence the idea +of _habit_ may arise out of the idea of either present time or aorist time. + +[alpha]. In English, the present form expresses _habit_. See p. 455. + +[beta]. In Greek the aorist expresses habit. + +Again, one tense, or one combination, may be used for another. _I was +speaking when he enters._ + +The results of these facts may now be noticed: + +1. The _emphatic present and praeterite._--Expressed by _do_ (or _did_), as +stated above. A man says _I do_ (or _did_) _speak_, _read_, &c., when, +either directly or by implication, it is asserted or implied that he does +not. As a question implies doubt, _do_ is used in interrogations. + + "_Do_ et _did_ indicant emphatice tempus praesens, et praeteritum + imperfectum. _Uro_, _urebam_; _I burn_, _I burned_: vel (emphatice) _I + do burn_, _I did burn_."--WALLIS, p. 106. + +2. _The predictive future._--_I shall be there to-morrow._ This means +simply that the speaker will be present. It gives no clue to the +circumstances that will determine his being so. + +3. The _promissive future._--_I will be there to-morrow._--This means not +only that the speaker will be present, but that he _intends_ being so. For +further observations on _shall_ and _will_, see pp. 471-474. + +4. That the power of the present tense is, in English, not present, but +habitual, has already been twice stated. + +s. 580. _The representative expression of past and future time._--An action +may be past; yet, for the sake of bringing it more vividly before the +hearers, we may make it present. {464} _He walks (_for_ walked) up to him, +and knocks (_for_ knocked) him down._ This denotes a single action; and is +by no means the natural habitual power of the English present. So, in +respect to a future, _I beat you if you don't leave off_, for _I will beat +you_. This use of the present tense is sometimes called the _historic_ use +of the present tense. I find it more convenient to call it the +representative use; inasmuch as it is used more after the principles of +painting than of history; the former of which, necessarily, _represents_ +things as present, the latter, more naturally, describes them as _past_. + +The use of the representative present to express simple actions is +unequivocally correct. To the expression, however, of complex actions it +gives an illogical character,--_As I was doing this he enters_ (for +_entered_). Nevertheless, such a use of the present is a fact in language, +and we must take it as it occurs. + +s. 581. The present tense can be used instead of the future; and that on +the principle of representation. Can a future be used for a present? No. + +The present tense can be used instead of the aorist; and that on the +principle of representation. Can a past tense, or combination, be used for +a present? + +In respect to the perfect tense there is no doubt. The answer is in the +affirmative. For all purposes of syntax a perfect tense, or a combination +equivalent to one, is a present tense. Contrast the expression, _I come +that I may see_; with the expression, _I came that I might see_; _i.e._, +the present construction with the aorist. Then, bring in the perfect +construction, _I have come_. It differs with the aorist, and agrees with +the present. _I have come that I may see._ The reason for this is clear. +There is not only a present element in all perfects, but for the purposes +of syntax, the present element predominates. Hence expressions like _I +shall go_, need give us no trouble; even though _shall_ be considered as a +perfect tense. Suppose the root, _sk-ll_ to mean _to be destined_ (or +_fated_). Provided we consider the effects of the action to be continued up +to the time of speaking, we may say _I _have been_ destined to go_, just as +well as we can say _I _am_ destined to go_. {465} + +The use of the aorist as a present (except so far as both the tenses agree +in their power of expressing _habitual_ actions) is a more difficult +investigation. It bears upon such expressions as _I ought to go_, &c., and +will be taken up in p. 475. + +s. 582. Certain adverbs, _i.e._, those of time, require certain tenses. _I +am then_, _I was now_, _I was hereafter_, &c., are contradictory +expressions. They are not so much bad grammar as impossible nonsense. +Nevertheless, we have in Latin such expressions as + + "Ut _sumus_ in ponto ter frigore constitit Ister." + +Here the connection of the present and perfect ideas explains the apparent +contradiction. The present state may be the result of a previous one; so +that a preterite element may be involved in a present expression. _Ut +sumus_=_since I have been where I am_. + +It is hardly necessary to remark that such expressions as _since I am here_ +(where _since_=_inasmuch as_) do not come under this class. + +s. 583. Two fresh varieties in the use of tenses and auxiliary verbs may be +arrived at by considering the following ideas, which may be superadded to +that of simple time. + +1. _Continuance in the case of future actions._--A future action may not +only take place, but continue: thus, a man may, on a given day, not only be +called by a particular name, but may _keep_ that name. When Hesiod says +that, notwithstanding certain changes which shall have taken place, good +shall _continue_ to be mixed with bad, he does not say, [Greek: esthla +michthesetai kakoisin], but, + + [Greek: All' empes kai toisi memixetai esthla kakoisin]. + + _Opera et Dies._ + +Again,-- + + [Greek: Epeith' ho polites entetheis en katalogoi] + [Greek: Oudeis kata spoudas metengraphesetai], + [Greek: All' hosper en to protun engegrapsetai]. + + ARISTOPH. _Equites_, 1366. + +{466} + +Here [Greek: metengraphesetai] means _change from one class to another_, +[Greek: engegrapsetai] _continuance in the same_.--See Mathiae, ii. s. 498. + +Upon the lines,-- + + [Greek: Hothen pros andron husteron keklesetai] + [Greek: Doureios hippos]. + + _Troades_, 13, 14. + +Seidler remarks that [Greek: klethesetai], est _nomen accipiet_; [Greek: +keklesetai], _nomen geret_. + +Now it is quite true that this Greek tense, the so-called +_paulo-post-futurum_, "bears the same relation to the other futures as, +among the tenses of past time, the perfectum does to the +aorist."--(Mathiae.) And it is also true that it by no means answers to the +English _shall have been_. Yet the logical elements of both are the same. +In the English expression, the _past_ power of the perfect predominates, in +the Greek its _present_ power. + +2. _Habit in the case of past actions._--_I had dined when I rode out._ +This may apply to a particular dinner, followed by a particular ride. But +it may also mean that when the speaker _had dined, according to habit, he +rode out, according to habit also_. This gives us a variety of pluperfect; +which is, in the French language, represented by separate +combination--_j'avais din['e]_, _j'eus din['e]_. + +s. 584. It is necessary to remember that the connection between the present +and the past time, which is involved in the idea of a perfect tense +([Greek: tetupha]), or perfect combination (_I have beaten_), is of several +sorts. + +It may consist in the _present proof_ of the _past_ fact,--_I have written, +and here is the evidence_. + +It may consist in the _present effects_ of the _past_ fact,--_I have +written, and here is the answer_. + +Without either enumerating or classifying these different kinds of +connexion, it is necessary to indicate two sorts of _inference_ to which +they may give origin. + +1. _The inference of continuance._--When a person says, _I have learned my +lesson_, we presume that he can say it, _i. e._, that, _he has a present +knowledge of it_. Upon this principle {467} [Greek: kektemai]=_I have +earned_=_I possess_. The past action is assumed to be continued in its +effects. + +2. _The inference of contrast._--When a person says, _I have been young_, +we presume that he is so no longer. The action is past, but it is continued +up to the time of speaking by the contrast which it supplies. Upon this +principle, _fuit Ilium_ means _Ilium is no more_. + +In speaking, this difference can be expressed by a difference of accent. _I +_have_ learned my lesson_, implies that _I don't mean to learn it again_. +_I have _learned_ my lesson_, implies that _I can say it_. + +s. 585. The construction of the auxiliary, _may_, will be considered in the +Chapter on Conjunctions; that of _can_, _must_, and _let_, offer nothing +remarkable. 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. {468} + +_I have ridden a horse_=_I have a horse ridden_=_I have a horse as a ridden +horse_, or (changing the gender and dealing with the word _horse_ as a +thing)=_I have a horse as a ridden thing_. + +In this case the syntax is of the usual sort. (1) +_Have_=_own_=_habeo_=_teneo_; (2) _horse_ is the accusative case=_equum_; +(3) _ridden_ is a past participle agreeing either with _horse_, or _with a +word in apposition with it understood_. + +Mark the words in italics. The word _ridden_ does not agree with _horse_, +since it is of the neuter gender. Neither if we said _I have ridden the +horses_, would it agree with _horses_; since it is of the singular number. + +The true construction is arrived at by supplying the word _thing_. _I have +a horse as a ridden thing_=_habeo equum equitatum_ (neuter). Here the +construction is the same as _triste lupus stabulis_. + +_I have horses as a ridden thing_=_habeo equos equitatam_ (singular, +neuter). Here the construction is-- + + "Triste ... maturis frugibus imbres, + Arboribus venti, nobis Amaryllides 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_. + +2. The combination of _have_ with an intransitive verb is irreducible to +the idea of possession: indeed, it is illogical. In _I have waited_, we +cannot make the idea expressed by the word _waited_ the object of the +_verb_ have or _possess_. The expression has become a part of language by +means of the extension of a false analogy. It is an instance of an +illegitimate imitation. + +3. The combination of _have_ with _been_ is more illogical still, and is a +stronger instance of the influence of an illegitimate imitation. In German +and Italian, where even _intransitive_ verbs are combined with the +equivalents to the English _have_ {469} (_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. 586. _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 (see Mr. Guest, _Phil. Trans._ No. 44) thought that, in the +phrase _he is to blame_, the word _blame_ was a noun, if he meant a noun in +the way that _culpa_ is a noun, his view was wrong. But if he meant a noun +in the way that _culpare_, _ad culpandum_, are nouns, it was right. + +s. 587. _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. 588. _Shall_ and _will._--The simply predictive future verb is _shall_. +Nevertheless, it is only used in the first person. The second and third +persons are expressed by the promissive verb _will_. + +The promissive future verb is _will_. Nevertheless, it is only used in the +first person. The second and third persons are expressed by the predictive +verb _shall_. {470} + +"In _primis_ personis _shall_ simpliciter praedicentis est; _will_, quasi +promittentis aut minantis. + +"In secundis et tertiis personis, _shall_ promittentis est aut minantis: +_will_ simpliciter praedicentis. + + "Uram=_I shall burn_. + Ures=_Thou wilt burn_. + Uret=_He will burn_. + Uremus=_We shall burn_. + Uretis=_Ye will burn_. + Urent=_They will burn_. + +nempe, hoc futurum praedico. + + "_I will burn._ + _Thou shalt burn._ + _He shall burn._ + _We will burn._ + _Ye shall burn._ + _They shall burn._ + +nempe, hoc futurum spondeo, vel faxo ut sit." + +Again--"_would_ et _should_ illud indicant quod erat vel esset futurum: cum +hoc tantum discrimine: _would_ voluntatem innuit, seu agentis propensionem: +_should_ simpliciter futuritionem."--Wallis, p. 107. + +s. 589. Archdeacon Hare explains this by a _usus ethicus_. "In fact, this +was one of the artifices to which the genius of the Greek language had +recourse, to avoid speaking presumptuously of the future: for there is an +awful, irrepressible, and almost instinctive consciousness of the +uncertainty of the future, and of our own powerlessness over it, which, in +all cultivated languages, has silently and imperceptibly modified the modes +of expression with regard to it: and from a double kind of _litotes_, the +one belonging to human nature generally, the other imposed by good-breeding +on the individual, and urging him to veil the manifestations of his will, +we are induced to frame all sorts of shifts for the sake of speaking with +becoming modesty. Another method, as we know, frequently adopted by the +Greeks was the use of the conditional moods: and as sentiments of this kind +always imply some degree of intellectual refinement, and strengthen with +its increase, this is called an Attic usage. The same name too has often +been given to the above-mentioned middle forms of the future; not that in +either case the practice was peculiar to the Attic dialect, but that it was +more general where the feelings which produced it were {471} strong and +more distinct. Here again our own language supplies us with an exact +parallel: indeed this is the only way of accounting for the singular +mixture of the two verbs _shall_ and _will_, by which, as we have no +auxiliary answering to the German _werde_, we express the future tense. Our +future, or at least what answers to it, is, _I shall_, _thou wilt_, _he +will_. When speaking in the first person, we speak submissively: when +speaking to or of another, we speak courteously. In our older writers, for +instance in our translation of the Bible, _shall_ is applied to all three +persons: we had not then reacht that stage of politeness which shrinks from +the appearance even of speaking compulsorily of another. On the other hand +the Scotch use _will_ in the first person: that is, as a nation they have +not acquired that particular shade of good-breeding which shrinks from +thrusting itself[61] forward." + +{472} + +s. 590. _Notice of the use of _will_ and _shall_, by Professor De +Morgan._--"The matter to be explained is the synonymous character of _will_ +in the first person with _shall_ in the second and third; and of _shall_ in +the first person with _will_ in the second and third: _shall_ (1) and +_will_ (2, 3) are called _predictive_: _shall_ (2, 3) and _will_ (1) +_promissive_. The suggestion now proposed will require four distinctive +names. + +"Archdeacon Hare's _usus ethicus_ is taken from the brighter side of human +nature:--'When speaking in the first person we speak submissively; when +speaking to or of another, we speak courteously.' This explains _I shall_, +_thou wilt_; but I cannot think it explains _I will_, _thou shalt_. It +often happens {473} that _you will_, with a persuasive tone, is used +courteously for something next to, if not quite, _you shall_. The present +explanation is taken from the darker side; and it is to be feared that the +_[`a] priori_ probabilities are in its favour. + +"In introducing the common mode of stating the future tenses, grammar has +proceeded as if she were more than a formal science. She has no more +business to collect together _I shall_, _thou wilt_, _he will_, than to do +the same with _I rule_, _thou art ruled_, _he is ruled_. + +"It seems to be the natural disposition of man to think of his own volition +in two of the following catagories, and of another man's in the other two: + + Compelling, non-compelling; restrained, non-restrained. + +{474} + +"The _ego_, with reference to the _non-ego_, is apt, thinking of himself, +to propound the alternative, 'Shall I compel, or shall I leave him to do as +he likes?' so that, thinking of the other, the alternative is, 'shall he be +restrained, or shall he be left to his own will?' Accordingly, the express +introduction of his own will is likely to have reference to compulsion, in +case of opposition: the express introduction of the will of another, is +likely to mean no more than the gracious permission of the _ego_ to let +_non-ego_ do as he likes. Correlatively, the suppression of reference to +his own will, and the adoption of a simply predictive form on the part of +the _ego_, is likely to be the mode with which, when the person is changed, +he will associate the idea of another having his own way; while the +suppression of reference to the will of the _non-ego_ is likely to infer +restraint produced by the predominant will of the _ego_. + +"Occasionally, the will of the _non-ego_ is referred to as under restraint +in modern times. To _I will not_, the answer is sometimes _you shall_, +meaning, in spite of the will--sometimes _you will_, meaning that the will +will be changed by fear or sense of the inutility of resistance."[62] + +s. 591. _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, bl[^i]ft ghegheven, waert, bl[^e]f ghegeven. + _New Dutch_ wordt gegeven, es gegeven worden. + _Old Frisian_ werth ejeven, is ejeven. + {475} + _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. + +s. 592. _Ought, would, &c., used as presents._--These words are not in the +predicament of _shall_. + +They are _present_ in power, and _past_ in form. So, perhaps, is _shall_. + +But they are not, like _shall_, perfect forms; _i. e._, they have no +natural present element in them. + +They are _aorist_ praeterites. Nevertheless, they have a present sense. + +So had their equivalents in Greek: [Greek: echren]=[Greek: chre], [Greek: +edei]=[Greek: dei], [Greek: proseken]=[Greek: prosekei]. + +In Latin, too, _would_ was often not represented by either _volo_ or +_volebam_, but by _velim_. + +I believe that the _usus ethicus_ is at the bottom of this construction. + +The assertion of _duty_ or _obligation_ is one of those assertions which +men like to soften in the expression: _should_, _ought_. + +So is the expression of power, as denoted by _may_ or _can_--_might_, +_could_. + +Very often when we say _you should_ (or _ought to_) _do this_, we leave to +be added by implication--_but you do not_. + +Very often when we say _I could_ (or _might_) _do this_, we leave to be +added by implication--_but I do not exert my power_. + +Now, if what is left undone be the _present_ element in this assertion, the +duty to do it, or the power of doing it, constitutes a past element in it; +since the power (or duty) is, in relation to the performance, a +cause--insufficient, indeed, but still antecedent. This hypothesis is +suggested rather than asserted. + +s. 593. By substituting the words _I am bound_ for _I ought_, {476} we may +see the expedients to which this present use of the praeterite forces us. + +_I_ am bound _to do this_ now = _I_ owe _to do this_ now. However, we do +not say _owe_, but _ought_. + +Hence, when we wish to say _I_ was bound _to do this_ two years ago, we +cannot say _I ought_ (_owed_) _to do this_, &c., since _ought_ is already +used in a present sense. + +We therefore say, instead, _I_ ought to have done _this_ two years ago; +which has a similar, but by no means an identical meaning. + +_I was bound to pay two years ago, _means_ two years ago I was under an +obligation to make a payment, either then or at some future time._ + +_I was bound to have paid, _&c., means_ I was under an obligation to have +made a payment._ + +If we use the word _ought_, this difference cannot be expressed. + +Common people sometimes say, _you had not ought to do so and so_; and they +have a reason for saying it. + +The Latin language is more logical. It says not _debet factum fuisse_, but +_debuit fieri_. + + * * * * * + + +{477} + +CHAPTER XXIV. + +THE SYNTAX OF ADVERBS. + +s. 594. 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. 595. 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_, and _peculiar_ (for _peculiarly_) +_bad grace_, &c. We are not, however, bound to imitate everything that we +can justify. + +s. 596. 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_. {478} 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. 597. 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. 598. _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. + + * * * * * + + +{479} + +CHAPTER XXV. + +ON PREPOSITIONS. + +s. 599. All prepositions govern an oblique case. If a word cease 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 _prefix_) has +originated. Nevertheless, it is by no means a philological necessity. In +many languages the prepositions are _post-positive_, following their noun. + +s. 600. 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. + +s. 601. The writer, however, of a paper on English preterites and +genitives, in the Philological Museum (II. 261) objects to the current +doctrine concerning such constructions as, _this is a picture of the +king's_. Instead of considering the sentence elliptic, and equivalent to +_this is a picture of_ or (_from_) _the king's pictures_, he entertains the +following view,--"I confess, however, that I feel some doubt whether this +phrase is {480} indeed to be regarded as elliptical, that is, whether the +phrase in room of which it is said to stand, was ever actually in use. It +has sometimes struck me that this may be a relict of the old practice of +using the genitive after nouns as well as before them, only with the +insertion of the preposition _of_. One of the passages quoted above from +'Arnold's Chronicle,' supplies an instance of a genitive so situated; and +one cannot help thinking that it was the notion that _of_ governed the +genitive, that led the old translators of Virgil to call his poem _The +Booke of Eneidos_, as it is termed by Phaer, and Gawin Douglas, and in the +translation printed by Caxton. Hence it may be that we put the genitive +after the noun in such cases, in order to express those relations which are +most appropriately expressed by the genitive preceding it. _A picture of +the king's_ is something very different from _the king's picture_: and so +many other relations are designated by _of_ with the objective noun, that +if we wish to denote possession thereby, it leaves an ambiguity: so, for +this purpose, when we want to subjoin the name of the possessor to the +thing possest, we have recourse to the genitive, by prefixing which we are +wont to express the same idea. At all events as, if we were askt whose +castle Alnwick is, we should answer, _The Duke of Northumberland's_; so we +should also say, _What a grand castle that is of the Duke of +Northumberland's!_ without at all taking into account whether he had other +castles besides: and our expression would be equally appropriate, whether +he had or not." + +Again, Mr. Guest quotes, amongst other passages, the following:-- + + Suffice this hill _of ours_-- + They fought two houres _of the nightes_-- + +Yet neither class of examples is conclusive. + +_Ours_ does not necessarily mean _of us_. It may also mean of _our hills_, +_i. e._, of _the hills of our choice_. _Nightes_ may mean _of the night's +hours_. In the expression, _what a grand castle_, &c., it is submitted to +the reader that we _do_ take into our account other castles, which the Duke +of Northumberland {481} may or may not have. _The Booke of Eneidos_ is a +mistaken Latinism. As it does not seem to have been sufficiently considered +that the real case governed by _of_ (as by _de_ in Latin) is the ablative, +it is the opinion of the present writer that no instance has yet been +produced of _of_ either governing, or having governed a genitive case. + +s. 602. It is not so safe to say in the present English that no preposition +governs a dative. The expression _give it him_ is good English; and it is +also equivalent to the Latin _da ei_. But we may also say _give it to him_. +Now the German _zu_=_to_ governs a dative case, and in Anglo-Saxon, the +preposition _to_, when prefixed to the infinitive mood, required the case +that followed it to be a dative. + +s. 603. When the infinitive mood is used as the subject of a proposition, +_i.e._, as a nominative case, it is impossible to allow to the preposition +_to_, by which it is preceded, any separate existence whatever,--_to +rise_=_rising_; _to err_=_error_. Here the preposition must, for the +purposes of syntax, be considered as incorporated with the noun, just like +an inseparable inflection. As such it may be preceded by another +preposition. The following example, although a Grecism, illustrates this:-- + + Yet not to have been dipt in Lethe's lake, + Could save the son of Thetis _from to die_. + +s. 604. Akin to this, but not the same, is the so-called vulgarism, +consisting of the use of the preposition _for_. _I am ready to go=I am +ready for going_=the so-called vulgarism, _I am ready_ for _to go_. Now, +this expression differs from the last in exhibiting, not only a _verbal_ +accumulation of prepositions, but a _logical_ accumulation as well: +inasmuch as _for_ and _to_ express like ideas. + +s. 605. Composition converts prepositions into adverbs. Whether we say +_upstanding_ or _standing-up_, we express the _manner_ in which an action +takes place, and not the relation between two substantives. The so-called +prepositional compounds in Greek ([Greek: anabaino, apothnesko], &c.) are +all adverbial. + + * * * * * + + +{482} + +CHAPTER XXVI. + +ON CONJUNCTIONS. + +s. 606. 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. 607. 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. {483} + +The conjunction of comparison, _than_, is derived from the adverb of time, +_then_; which is derived from the accusative singular of the demonstrative +pronoun. + +The conjunction, _that_, is derived also from a demonstrative pronoun. + +The conjunction, _therefore_, is a demonstrative pronoun + a preposition. + +The conjunction, _because_, is a substantive governed by a preposition. + +One and the same word, in one and the same sentence, may be a conjunction +or preposition, as the case may be. + +_All fled but John._--If this mean _all fled_ except _John_, the word _but_ +is a preposition, the word _John_ is an accusative case, and the +proposition is single. If, instead of _John_, we had a personal pronoun, we +should say _all fled but_ him. + +_All fled but John._--If this mean _all fled, but John did not fly_, the +word _but_ is a conjunction, the word _John_ is a nominative case, and the +propositions are two in number. If, instead of _John_, we had a personal +pronoun, we should say, _all fled but_ he. + +From the fact of the great convertibility of conjunctions it is often +necessary to determine whether a word be a conjunction or not. _If it be a +conjunction, it cannot govern a case. If it govern a case, it is no +conjunction but a preposition._ A conjunction cannot govern a case, for the +following reason,--the word that follows it _must_ be the subject of the +second proposition, and, as such, a nominative case. + +s. 608. 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_. + +2. Of two propositions one may be the condition of the other--_the day will +be clear_ if _the sun shine_. Here, although it is certain that _if the sun +shine the day will be clear_, there is {484} 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. 609. 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 be +indefinite, there is room for the use {485} a subjunctive mood. Thus--he +that troubled you shall bear his judgment, _whosoever_ he _be_. + +s. 610. 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]_.[63] + +s. 611. 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 {486} 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. 612. 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. 613. 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. {487} + + _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 (probably referable to the _usus ethicus_) that +_if_ may stand instead of _since_. + +It is also a philological fact that when it does so it should be followed +by the indicative mood. + +This is written in the way of illustration. What applies to _if_ applies to +other conjunctions as well. + +s. 614. 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 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. 615. 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. + +In English the word _that_, so used, cannot be said to govern a mood, +although generally followed by either _may_ or _might_. {488} It should +rather be said to require a certain combination to follow it. The most +important point connected with the powers of _that_ is the so-called +_succession of tenses_. + +s. 616. _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_. + +A clear perception of the logical necessity of the law of the succession of +tenses, is necessary for understanding the nature of several anomalous +passages in the classical writers. In the following, an aorist is followed +not by an optative, but by a subjunctive. + + [Greek: Ouk agathon polukoiranie; heis koiranos esto,] + [Greek: Heis basileus, hoi edoke Kronou pais ankulometeo] + [Greek: Skeptron t' ede themistas, hina sphisin embasileuei.] + +{489} + +Here it is necessary to construe [Greek: edoke], _has given and continues +to allow_, which is to construe it like a _perfect_[64] tense. Upon similar +passages Mathiae writes, "but frequently the conjunctive is used, although +the preceding word be in the time past, viz., when the verb which depends +upon the conjunction shows an action continued to the present time." That +means when the verb is really a perfect. + +In Latin, where the same form is both aorist and perfect, the succession of +tenses is a means of determining which of the two meanings it conveys. +_Veni ut videam_=_I have come that I may see._ _Veni ut viderem_=_I came +that I might see_. + +Arnold states, from Krueger and Zumpt, that even where the praeterite was +clearly a perfect (_i. e._, =_to have_ with the participle), the Roman ear +was so accustomed to the _imperfect_ subjunctive, that it preferred such an +expression _as diu dubitavi num melius esset to diu dubitavi num melius +sit_. The latter part of the statement is sure enough; but it is by no +means so sure that _dubitavi_, and similar forms in similar constructions +are perfects. There is no reason for considering this to be the case in the +present instance. It seems to be so, because it is connected with _diu_; +but an action may last a long time, and yet not last up to the time of +speaking. _Diu dubitavi_ probably expresses, _I doubted a long time_, and +leaves it to be inferred that _now I do not doubt_. + +s. 617. It has been stated above that whilst the Latin and English have a +succession of _tenses_, the Greek language {490} exhibits what may be +called a succession of _moods_. This suggests inquiry. Is the difference +real? If so, how is it explained? If not, which of the two grammatical +systems is right?--the English and Latin on the one side, or the Greek on +the other? Should [Greek: tuptoimi] be reduced to a past tense, or +_verberarem_ be considered an optative mood. + +The present writer has no hesitation in stating his belief, that all the +phaenomena explicable by the assumption of an optative mood are equally +explicable by an expansion of the subjunctive, and a different distribution +of its tenses. + +1. Let [Greek: tupso] be considered a subjunctive _future_ instead of a +subjunctive aorist. + +2. Let [Greek: tuotoimi] be considered an _imperfect subjunctive_. + +3. Let [Greek: tetuphoimi] be considered a _pluperfect subjunctive_. + +4. Let [Greek: tupsaimi] be considered an aorist _subjunctive_. + +Against this view there are two reasons: + +1. The double forms [Greek: tupsaimi] and [Greek: tupsoimi], one of which +would remain unplaced. + +2. The use of the optative and conjunctive in simple propositions, as-- + + [Greek: o pai, genoio patros eutuchesteros.] + +The first reason I am not prepared to impugn. _Valeat quantum_, &c. The +second indicates a class of expressions which tense will _not_ explain, and +which mood _will_. Yet this is not conclusive. _Would that thou wert_ is +thoroughly optative: yet it is expressed by a tense. + +The _form_ of the so-called optatives proves nothing. Neither the +subjunctive nor the optative has any signs of _mood_ at all, except the +negative one of the absence of the augment. Their signs are the signs of +_tense_. + +In favour of the view are the following reasons:-- + +1. The analogy of other languages. The imperfect has a subjunctive in +Latin. So has the future. + +2. The undoubtedly future character of the so-called aorist imperative. To +give an order to do a thing in _past_ time is a philological contradiction. +Forms like [Greek: blepson] _must_ be future. Though [Greek: thes] and +[Greek: tithei] differ in power, they both mean an {491} action subsequent +to, or, at any rate, simultaneous with the order given; certainly not one +anterior to it. + +s. 618. _Be_ may stand for _may be_. In this case the preterite is not +_were_ but _might be_. The sentence, _what_ care _I how fair the lady_ be, +_if she be not fair to her admirer_? is accurate. Here _be_ = _may be_. +But, _what_ cared _I how fair the lady_ were, _if she were not fair to her +admirer_? is inaccurate. It ought to run thus,--_what_ cared _I how fair +the lady_ might be, _if she were not fair to her admirer_?[65] + +s. 619. _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, {492} _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. + +s. 620. _Either, neither._--Many disjunctives imply an alternative. If it +be not this person (or thing) that performs a certain action (or exists in +a certain state) it is some other. If a person (or thing) do not perform a +certain action (or exist in a certain state), under one name, he (or it) +does so under another. This alternative is expressed by the word _either_. + +When the word _either_ is connected immediately with the copula of a +proposition, it is, if not a true conjunction, at least _a part of a +conjunctional periphrasis_.--_This either is or is not so._ + +When it belongs more to one of the terms of a proposition than to the +copula, it is a pronoun,--_Either I or you is in the wrong_. _It is either +you or I._ + +I use the words, _part of a conjunctional periphrasis_, because the full +conjunction is _either_ + _or_ (or _neither_ + _nor_); the essential +conjunctions being the latter words. To these, _either_ (or _neither_) is +superadded, indicating the _manner_ in which the disjunction expressed by +_or_ (or _nor_) takes place; _i. e._, they show that it takes place in the +manner of an alternative. Now, this superadded power is rather adverbial +than conjunctional. + +s. 621. From the pronominal character of the word _either_, when it forms +part of a term, and from the power of the disjunctive, _or_, in _isolating_ +the subject of the verb, combined with an assumption which will be +explained hereafter, we get at the principle of certain rules for doubtful +constructions. + +In expressions like _either you or I is in the wrong_, we must {493} +consider _either_ not only as _a_ pronoun, but as _the leading_ pronoun of +the proposition; a pronoun of which _or I_ is an explanation; and, finally, +as the pronoun which determines the person of the verb. _Either you or I is +wrong_=_one of us_ (_you or I_) _is wrong_. + +Then, as to expressions like _I, or you, am in the wrong_. Here, _I_ is the +leading pronoun, which determines the person of the verbs; the words, _or +you_, being parenthetic, and subordinate. These statements bear upon the +rules of p. 457. + +s. 622. Will this principle justify such expressions as _either they or we +is in the wrong_? + +Or will it justify such expressions as _either he or they is in the wrong_? + +Or will it justify such expressions as _I or they am in the wrong_? In all +which sentences one pronoun is plural. + +Perhaps not. The assumption that has been just alluded to, as helping to +explain certain doubtful constructions, is the following, _viz._, that in +cases of apposition, disjunction, and complex terms, the _first_ word is +the one which determines the character of the sentence wherein it occurs. +This is a practice of the English language, which, in the opinion of the +present writer, nothing but a very decided preponderance of a difference in +person, gender, or number, can overrule. Such may fairly be considered to +be the case in the three examples just adduced; especially as there is also +the secondary influence of the conjunctional character of the word +_either_. Thus, although we say,-- + + _One of two parties, they or we, is in the wrong._ + +We also say,-- + + _Either they or we are in the wrong_. + +As for the other two expressions, they are in the same predicament, with an +additional reason for the use of the plural. It _contains_ the singular. +The chief object of the present remarks has been less to explain details +than to give due prominence to the following leading principles. + +1. That _either_ (or _neither_) is[66] essentially singular in number. + +{494} + +2. That it is, like any common noun, of the third person. + +3. That it is pronominal where it is in apposition with another noun. + +4. That when it is the first word of the proposition it determines the +concord of the verb, unless its character of a noun of the singular number +and third person be disguised by the prominence of some plural form, or +some pronoun of the first or second person in the latter part of the term. + +5. That in a simple disjunctive proposition (_i.e._, one where _either_ +does not occur) all nouns are subordinate to the first. + +s. 623. I believe that the use of _either_ is limited to _real_ +disjunctives; in other words, that we can say _either a king or a queen +always reigns in England_, but that we cannot say _either a sovereign or a +supreme ruler always reigns in England_. + + * * * * * + + +{495} + +CHAPTER XXVII. + +THE SYNTAX OF THE NEGATIVE. + +s. 624. 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. 625. 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:-- {496} + + 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. 626. 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. 627. _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,[67] _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 aetherial stream, + Whose fountain who (_no one_) shall tell? + + _Paradise Lost._ + +s. 628. The following extract from the Philological Museum (vol. ii.) +illustrates a curious and minute distinction, which the author shows to +have been current when Wicliffe wrote, but which was becoming obsolete when +Sir Thomas More wrote. It is an extract from that writer against Tyndall. + +{497} + +"I would not here note by the way that Tyndall here translateth _no_ for +_nay_, for it is but a trifle and mistaking of the Englishe worde: saving +that ye shoulde see that he whych in two so plain Englishe wordes, and so +common as in _naye_ and _no_ can not tell when he should take the one and +when the tother, is not for translating into Englishe a man very mete. For +the use of these two wordes in aunswering a question is this. _No_ +aunswereth the question framed by the affirmative. As for ensample if a +manne should aske Tindall himselfe: ys an heretike meete to translate Holy +Scripture into Englishe? lo to thys question if he will aunswere trew +Englishe, he must aunswere _nay_ and not _no_. But and if the question be +asked hym thus lo: is not an heretike mete to translate Holy Scripture into +Englishe? To this question if he will aunswere trewe Englishe, he must +aunswere _no_ and not _nay_. And a lyke difference is there betwene these +two adverbs _ye_ and _yes_. For if the question bee framed unto Tindall by +the affirmative in thys fashion. If an heretique falsely translate the New +Testament into Englishe, to make his false heresyes seem the word of Godde, +be his bokes worthy to be burned? To this questyon asked in thys wyse, yf +he will aunswere true Englishe, he must aunswere _ye_ and not _yes_. But +now if the question be asked him thus lo; by the negative. If an heretike +falsely translate the Newe Testament into Englishe to make his false +heresyes seme the word of God, be not hys bokes well worthy to be burned? +To thys question in thys fashion framed if he will aunswere trewe Englishe +he may not aunswere _ye_ but he must answere _yes_, and say yes marry be +they, bothe the translation and the translatour, and al that wyll hold wyth +them." + + * * * * * + + +{498} + +CHAPTER XXVIII. + +ON THE CASE ABSOLUTE. + +s. 629. 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. + + * * * * * + + +{499} + +PART VI. + +ON THE PROSODY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. + +s. 630. Prosody deals with metre; and with accent, quantity and the +articulate sounds, as subordinate to metre. For these the reader is +referred to Part III. Chapters 1. 6. 7. + +_Metre_ is a general term for the recurrence, within certain intervals, of +syllables similarly affected. + +Syllables may be similarly affected: 1. in respect to their quantities; 2. +in respect to their accents; 3. in respect to their articulations. + + 1. + + P[)a]l[=a]i k[)y]naeg[)e]to[=u]nt[)a] k[=a]i m[)e]tro[=u]m[)e]n[=o]n. + [Greek: Palai kunegetounta kai metroumenon.]--SOPH. _Ajax_, 3. + +Here there is the recurrence of similar quantities. + + 2. + + The w['a]y was l['o]ng, the w['i]nd was c['o]ld. + + _Lay of the Last Minstrel._ + +Here there is the recurrence of similar accents. + + 3. + + The way was long, the wind was _cold_, + The minstrel was infirm and _old_.--_Ditto._ + +Here, besides the recurrence of similar accents, there is a recurrence of +the same articulate sounds; _viz._ of _o_ + _ld_. + +s. 631. Metres founded upon the periodic recurrence of similar +articulations are of two sorts. + +1. _Alliterative metres._--In alliterative metres a certain {500} number of +words, within a certain period, must _begin_ with a similar articulation. + + In Caines cynne + thone cwealm gewraec. + + CAEDMON. + +Alliteration is the general character of all the _early_ Gothic metres. +(See Rask's _Anglo-Saxon Grammar_, Rask, _On the Icelandic Prosody_, and +Conybeare, _On Anglo-Saxon Poetry_.) + +2. _Assonant metres._--In assonant metres a certain number of words, within +a certain period, must _end_ with a similar articulation. All _rhymes_ and +all approaches to rhyme, form the assonant metres. The word _assonant_ has +a limited as well as a general sense. + +s. 632. All metre goes by the name of poetry, although all poetry is not +metrical. The Hebrew poetry (_see_ Lowth, _De Sacra Poesi Hebraeorum_) is +characterized by the recurrence of similar _ideas_. + +s. 633. The metres of the classical languages consist _essentially_ in the +recurrence of similar quantities; accent also playing a part. The +incompatibility of the classical metres with the English prosody lies in +the fact (stated at p. 166), _that the classic writer measures quantity by +the length of the syllable taken altogether, while the Englishman measures +it by the length of the vowel alone_. + +s. 634. The English metres consist essentially of the recurrence of similar +accents; the recurrence of similar articulations being sometimes (as in all +rhyming poetry) superadded. + +s. 635. In the specimen of alliteration lately quoted the only articulation +that occurred was the letter c. It is very evident that the _two_, the +_three_, or the _four_ first letters, or even the whole syllable, might +have coincided. Such is the case with the following lines from Lord Byron: + + Already doubled is the cape, the bay + Receives the _prow_, that _prou_dly _sp_urns the _sp_ray. + +Alliteration, as an ornament, must be distinguished from alliteration as +the essential character of metre. Alliteration, as an ornament, is liable +to many varieties. {501} + +s. 636. _Rhyme._--In _English_ versification, _rhyme_ is, next to accent, +the most important element. The true nature of a rhyme may best be +exhibited after the analysis of a syllable, and the exhibition of certain +recurrent combinations, that look like rhyme without being so. + +Let the syllable _told_ be taken to pieces. For metrical purposes it +consists of three parts or elements: 1, the vowel (_o_); 2, the part +preceding the vowel (_t_); 3, the part following the vowel (_ld_). The same +may be done with the word _bold_. The two words can now be compared with +each other. The comparison shows that the vowel is in each the same (_o_); +that the part following the vowel (_ld_) is the same; and, finally, that +the part preceding the vowel is _different_ (_t_ and _b_). This difference +between the part preceding the vowel is essential. + +_Told_, compared with itself (_told_), is no rhyme, but an _homoeoteleuton_ +([Greek: homoios], _homoios_=_like_, and [Greek: teleute], +_teleutae_=_end_) or _like-ending_. It differs from a rhyme in having the +parts preceding the vowel alike. Absolute identity of termination is not +recognized in English poetry, except so far as it is mistaken for rhyme. + + The soft-flowing outline that steals from the _eye_, + Who threw o'er the surface? did you or did _I_? + + WHITEHEAD. + +Here the difference in spelling simulates a difference in sound, and a +_homoeoteleuton_ takes the appearance of a rhyme. + +_Bold_ and _note_.--As compared with each other, these words have two of +the elements of a rhyme: _viz._ the identity of the vowel, and the +difference of the parts preceding it. They want, however, the third +essential, or the identity of the parts following; _ld_ being different +from _t_. The coincidence, however, as far as it goes, constitutes a point +in metre. The words in question are assonances in the limited sense of the +term; and because the identity lies in the _vowels_, they may be named +vowel assonances. Vowel assonances are recognized in (amongst others) the +Spanish and Scandinavian metrical systems. In English they occur only when +they pass as rhymes. {502} + +_Bold_ and _mild_.--Here also are two of the elements of a rhyme, viz., the +identity of the parts following the vowel (_ld_), and the difference of the +parts preceding (_b_ and _m_). The identity of the vowel (_o_ being +different from _i_) is, however, wanting. The words in question are +assonances in the limited sense of the term, and consonantal assonances. +Recognized in the Scandinavian, they occur in English only when they pass +as rhymes. + +Rhymes may consist of a single syllable, as _told_, _bold_, of two +syllables, as _water_, _daughter_; of three, as _cheerily_, _wearily_. Now, +the rhyme begins where the dissimilarity of parts immediately before the +main vowel begins. Then follows the vowel; and, lastly, the parts after the +vowel. All the parts after the vowel must be absolutely identical. Mere +similarity is insufficient. + + Then come ere a _minute's_ gone, + For the long summer day + Puts its wings, swift as _linnets'_ on, + For flying away.--CLARE.[68] + +In the lines just quoted there is no rhyme, but an assonance. The identity +of the parts after the main syllable is destroyed by the single sound of _g +in gone_. + +A rhyme, to be perfect, must fall on syllables equally accented.--To make +_sky_ and the last syllable of merri_ly_ serve as rhymes, is to couple an +accented syllable with an unaccented one. + +A rhyme, to be perfect, must fall upon syllables absolutely accented.--To +make the last syllables of words like fligh_ty_ and merri_ly_ serve as +rhymes, is to couple together two unaccented syllables. + +Hence there may be (as in the case of blank verse) accent without rhyme; +but there cannot be rhyme without accent. + +A rhyme consists in the combination of like and unlike _sounds_.--Words +like _I_ and _eye_ (_homoeoteleuta_), _ease_ and _cease_ (vowel +assonances), _love_ and _grove_ (consonantal assonances), are printers' +rhymes; or mere combinations of like and unlike letters. + +{503} + +A rhyme, moreover, consists in the combination of like and unlike +_articulate_ sounds. _Hit_ and _it_ are not rhymes, but identical endings; +the _h_ being no articulation. To my ear, at least, the pair of words, +_hit_ and _it_, comes under a different class from the pair _hit_ (or _it_) +and _pit_. + +s. 637. A full and perfect rhyme (the term being stringently defined) +consists in _the recurrence of one or more final syllables equally and +absolutely accented, wherein the vowel and the part following the vowel +shall be identical, whilst the part preceding the vowel shall be different. +It is also necessary that the part preceding the vowel be articulate._[69] + +The deviations from the above-given rule, so common in the poetry of all +languages, constitute not rhymes, but assonances, &c., that, by poetic +licence, are recognized as equivalents to rhymes. + +s. 638. _Measure._--In lines like the following, the accent occurs on every +second syllable; in other words, every accented syllable is accompanied by +an unaccented one. + + The w['a]y was l['o]ng, the w['i]nd was c['o]ld. + +This accented syllable and its accompanying unaccented one constitute a +_measure_. The number of the syllables being two, the measure in question +is dissyllabic. + +s. 639. In lines like the following the accent falls on every third +syllable, so that the number of syllables to the measure is three, and the +measure is trisyllabic. + + At the cl['o]se of the d['a]y when the h['a]mlet is st['i]ll.--BEATTIE. + +The primary division of the English measures is into the dissyllabic and +the trisyllabic. + +{504} + +s. 640. _Dissyllabic measures._--The words _t['y]rant_ and _pres['u]me_ are +equally dissyllabic measures; in one, however, the accent falls on the +first, in the other on the second syllable. This leads us to a farther +division of the English measures. + +A measure like _pres['u]me_ (where the accent lies on the second syllable) +may be repeated throughout a whole verse, or a whole series of verses; as, + + Then f['a]re thee w['e]ll mine ['o]wn dear l['o]ve; + The w['o]rld has n['o]w for ['u]s + No gr['e]ater gr['i]ef, no pa['i]n ab['o]ve, + The p['a]in of p['a]rting th['u]s.--MOORE. + +Here the accent falls on the second syllable of the measure. + +A measure like _t['y]rant_ (where the accent lies on the first syllable) +may be repeated throughout a whole verse, or a whole series of verses; as, + + H['e]ed! O h['e]ed, my f['a]tal st['o]ry; + ['I] am H['o]sier's ['i]njured gh['o]st; + C['o]me to s['e]ek for f['a]me and gl['o]ry, + F['o]r the gl['o]ry ['I] have l['o]st.--GLOVER. + +The number of dissyllabic measures is, of necessity, limited to two. + +s. 641. _Trisyllabic measures._--The words _m['e]rrily_, _dis['a]ble_, +_cavali['e]r_, are equally trisyllabic, but not similarly accented. Each +constitutes a separate measure, which may be continued through a whole +verse, or a whole series of verses; as, + + 1. + + 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 b['o]ugh. + + _Tempest._ + + 2. + + But v['a]inly 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. + + _Christabel._ + + {505} + There's a be['a]uty 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. + + _Lalla Rookh._ + +The number of trisyllabic measures is, of necessity, limited to three. + +s. 642. The nature of measures may, as we have already seen, be determined +by the proportion of the accented and unaccented syllables. It may also be +determined by the proportion of the long and short syllables.--In the one +case we measure by the accent, in the other by the quantity. Measures +determined by the quantity are called _feet_. The word _foot_ being thus +defined, we have no _feet_ in the English metres; since in English we +determine our measures by accent only. + +The classical grammarians express their feet by symbols; [-] denoting +length, [U] shortness. Forms like [U- -U -UU U-U UU-] &c., are the +symbolical representations of the classical feet. + +The classical grammarians have names for their feet; _e.g._, _iambic_ is +the name of [U-], _trochee_ of [-U], _dactyle_ of [-UU], _amphibrachys_ of +[U-U], _Anapaest_ of [UU-], &c. + +The English grammarians have no symbols for their feet: since they have no +form for expressing the absence of the accent. Sometimes they borrow the +classical forms [U] and [-]. These, however, being originally meant for +the expression of _quantity_, confusion arises from the use of them. + +Neither have the English grammarians names for their measures. Sometimes, +they borrow the classical terms _iambic_, _trochee_, &c. These, however, +being meant for the expression of _quantity_, confusion arises from the use +of them. + +As symbols for the English measures, I indicate the use of _a_ as denoting +an accented, _x_ an unaccented syllable; or else that of + as denoting an +accented, - an unaccented syllable. Finally, ' may denote the accent, " the +absence of it. + +As names for the English measures I have nothing to offer. At times it is +convenient to suppose that they have a definite order of arrangement, and +to call words like _t['y]rant_ the _first_ measure, and words like +_pres['u]me_ the second measure. In like manner, _m['e]rrily_ is measure 3; +_dis['a]ble_, 4; and _cavali['e]r_, 5. As the number of measures is (from +the necessity of the case) limited, this can be done conveniently. The +classical {506} names are never used with impunity. Their adoption +invariably engenders confusion. It is very true that, _mutatis mutandis_ +(_i. e._, accent being substituted for quantity), words like _t['y]rant_ +and _pres['u]me_ are trochees and iambics; but it is also true that, with +the common nomenclature, the full extent of the change is rarely +appreciated. + +Symbolically expressed, the following forms denote the following measures: + + 1. + - , or ' ", or _a x_ = _t['y]rant_. + 2. - + , or " ', or _x a_ = _pres['u]me_. + 3. + - -, or ' " ", or _a x x_ = _m['e]rrily_. + 4. - + -, or " ' ", or _x a x_ = _dis['a]ble_. + 5. - - +, or " " ', or _x x a_ = _cavali['e]r_. + +On these measures the following general assertions may be made; _viz._ + +That the dissyllabic measures are, in English, commoner than the +trisyllabic. + +That, of the dissyllabic measures, the second is commoner than the first. + +That of the trisyllabic measures, No. 3 is the least common. + +That however much one measure may predominate in a series of verses, it is +rarely unmixed with others. In + + _T['y]rants_ swim s['a]fest in a p['u]rple flo['o]d-- + + MARLOWE-- + +the measure _a x_ appears in the place of _x a_. This is but a single +example of a very general fact, and of a subject liable to a multiplicity +of rules. + +s. 643. Grouped together according to certain rules, measures constitute +lines or verses; and grouped together according to certain rules, lines +constitute couplets, triplets, stanzas, &c. + +The absence or the presence of rhyme constitutes blank verse, or rhyming +verse. + +The succession, or periodic return, of rhymes constitutes stanzas, or +continuous metre as the case may be. + +The quantity of rhymes in succession constitutes couplets, or triplets. + +The quantity of _accents_ in a line constitutes the nature of the verse, +taken by itself. {507} + +The succession, or periodic return, of verses of the same length has the +same effect with the succession, or periodic return, of rhymes; _viz._, it +constitutes stanzas, or continuous metre, as the case may be. + +This leads to the nomenclature of the English metres. Of these, none in any +of the trisyllabic measures have recognized and technical names; neither +have any that are referable to the measure _a x_. + +s. 644. Taking, however, those that are named, we have the following list +of terms. + +1. _Octosyllabics._--Four measures _x a_, and (unless the rhyme be double) +eight syllables. Common in Sir W. Scott's poetry. + + The way was long the wind was cold. + + _Lay of the Last Minstrel._ + +2. _Heroics._--Five measures _x a_. This is the common measure in narrative +and didactic poetry. + + To err is human, to forgive divine. + +3. _Alexandrines._--Six measures _x a_. This name is said to be taken from +the early romances on the deeds of Alexander the Great. + + He lifted up his hand | that back againe did start.--SPENSER. + +4. _Service metre._--Seven measures _x a_. This is the common metre of the +psalm-versions. Thence its name. + + But one request I made to him | that sits the skies above, + That I were freely out of debt | as I were out of love. + + SIR JOHN SUCKLING. + +s. 645. Such are the names of certain lines or verses taken by themselves. +Combined or divided they form-- + +1. _Heroic couplets._--Heroics, in rhyming couplets, successive.-- + + 'Tis hard to say if greater want of skill + Appear in writing or in judging ill. + + _Essay on Criticism._ + +The heroic couplet is called also _riding rhyme_; it being the metre +wherein Chaucer's Canterbury Tales (told by a party riding to Canterbury) +are chiefly written. {508} + +2. _Heroic triplets._--Same as the preceding, except that three rhymes come +in succession. + +3. _Blank verse._--Heroics without rhyme. + +4. _Elegiacs._--The metre of Gray's Elegy. Heroics in four-line stanzas +with alternate rhymes. + +5. _Rhyme royal._--Seven lines of heroics, with the last two rhymes +successive, and the first five recurring at intervals. Sometimes the last +line is an Alexandrine. There are varieties in this metre according to the +intervals of the first five rhymes:-- + + This Troilus in gift of curtesie + With hauke on hond, and with a huge rout + Of knights, rode and did her companie + Passing all the valey far without, + And ferther would have ridden out of doubt, + Full faine, and wo was him to gone so sone, + And tourne he must, and it was eke to doen. + + CHAUCER'S _Troilus_. + +6. _Ottava rima._--The metre in Italian for narrative poetry. Eight lines +of heroics; the first six rhyming alternately, the last two in +succession.--Byron's Don Juan in English, Orlando Furioso, &c., in Italian. + +7. _Spenserian stanza._--Eight lines of heroics closed by an Alexandrine. +There are varieties of this metre according to the interval of the rhymes. + +8. _Terza rima._--Taken from the Italian, where it is the metre of Dante's +Divina Commedia. Heroics with _three_ rhymes recurring at intervals.--Lord +Byron's Prophecy of Dante. + +9. _Poulterer's measure._--Alexandrines and service measures alternately. +Found in the poetry of Henry the Eighth's time. + +10. _Ballad metre._--Stanzas of four lines; the first and third having +four, the second and fourth having three measures each. Rhymes alternate. + + Turn, gentle hermit of the dale, + And guide thy lonely way, + To where yon taper cheers the vale + With hospitable ray. + + _Edwin and Angelina._ + +{509} + +s. 646. _Scansion._--Let the stanza just quoted be read as two lines, and +it will be seen that a couplet of ballad metre is equivalent to a line of +service metre. Such, indeed, was the origin of the ballad metre. Observe +also the pause (marked |) both in the Alexandrine and the service metres. +This indicates a question as to where lines _end_; in other words, how can +we distinguish one long line from two short ones. + +It may, perhaps, partake of the nature of a metrical fiction to consider +that (in all rhyming poetry) the length of the verse is determined by the +occurrence of the rhyme. Nevertheless, as the matter cannot be left to the +printer only, and as some definition is requisite, the one in point is +attended by as few inconveniences as any other. It must not, however, be +concealed that lines as short as + + It screamed and growled, | and cracked and howled-- + +it treats as _two_; and that lines as long as + + Where Virtue wants and Vice abounds, + And Wealth is but a baited hook-- + +it reduces to a single verse. + +s. 647. In metres of measure _a x_, the number of syllables is double the +number of accents, unless the final rhyme be single; in which case the +syllables are the fewest. + +In metres of measure _x a_ the number of syllables is double the number of +accents, unless the rhyme be double (or treble); in which case the +syllables are the most numerous. + +Now this view (which may be carried throughout the whole five measures) of +the proportion between the accents and the syllables, taken with the fact +that it is determined by the nature of the final syllable, indicates a +division of our metres into symmetrical (where the number of the syllables +is the multiple of the number of accents), and unsymmetrical (where it is +not so). + +For practical purposes, however, the length of the last measure may be +considered as indifferent, and the terms indicated may be reserved for the +forthcoming class of metres. {510} + +s. 648. Of the metres in question, Coleridge's Christabel and Byron's Siege +of Corinth are the current specimens. In the latter we have the couplet: + + He s['a]t him d['o]wn at a p['i]llar's b['a]se, + And dr['e]w his h['a]nd athw['a]rt his f['a]ce. + +In the second of these lines, the accents and the syllables are +symmetrical; which is not the case with the first. Now to every, or any, +accent in the second line an additional unaccented syllable may be added, +and the movement be still preserved. It is the fact of the accents and +syllables (irrespective of the latitude allowed to the final measure) being +here unsymmetrical (or, if symmetrical, only so by accident) that gives to +the metres in question their peculiar character. Added to this, the change +from _x x a_, to _x a x_, and _a x x_, is more frequent than elsewhere. One +point respecting them must be borne in mind; _viz._, that they are +essentially trisyllabic metres from which unaccented syllables are +withdrawn, rather than dissyllabic ones wherein unaccented syllables are +inserted. + +s. 649. Of measures of one, and of measures of four syllables the +occurrence is rare, and perhaps equivocal. + +s. 650. The majority of English _words_ are of the form _a x_; that is, +words like _t['y]rant_ are commoner than words like _pres['u]me_. + +The majority of English _metres_ are of the form _x a_; that is, lines like + + _The w['a]y was l['o]ng, the w['i]nd was c['o]ld_ + +are commoner than lines like + + _Q['u]een and h['u]ntress ch['a]ste and f['a]ir._ + +The multitude of unaccentuated words like _the_, _from_, &c., taken along +with the fact that they _precede_ the words with which they agree, or which +they govern, accounts for the apparent antagonism between the formulae of +our _words_ and the formulae of our _metres_. The contrast between a +Swedish line of the form _a x_, and its literal English version (_x a_), +{511} shows this. In Swedish, the secondary part of the construction +_follows_, in English it _precedes_, the main word:-- + + _Swedish._ V['a]r_en_ k['o]mm_er_; f['u]gl_en_ qvittr_ar_; + sk['o]v_en_ l['o]fv_as_; s['o]l_en_ l['e]r. + + _English._ _The_ spr['i]ng _is_ c['o]me; _the_ b['i]rd _is_ bl['y]the; + _the_ w['o]od _is_ gr['e]en; _the_ s['u]n _is_ br['i]ght. + +This is quoted for the sake of showing the bearing of the etymology and +syntax of a language upon its prosody. + +s. 651. _The classical metres as read by Englishmen._--In p. 500 it is +stated that "the metres of the classical languages consist essentially in +the recurrence of similar quantities; _accent playing a part_." Now there +are reasons for investigating the facts involved in this statement more +closely than has hitherto been done; since the following circumstances make +some inquiry into the extent of the differences between the English and the +classical systems of metre, an appropriate element of a work upon the +English language. + +1. The classical poets are authors preeminently familiarized to the +educated English reader. + +2. The notions imbibed from a study of the classical prosodies have been +unduly mixed up with those which should have been derived more especially +from the poetry of the Gothic nations. + +3. The attempt to introduce (so-called) Latin and Greek metres into the +Gothic tongues, has been partially successful on the Continent, and not +unattempted in Great Britain. + +s. 652. The first of these statements requires no comment. + +The second, viz., "that the notions imbibed, &c." will bear some +illustration; an illustration which verifies the assertion made in p. 505, +that the English grammarians "sometimes borrow the classical terms +_iambic_, _trochee_," &c., and apply them to their own metres. + +How is this done? In two ways, one of which is wholly incorrect, the other +partially correct, but inconvenient. + +To imagine that we have in English, for the practical purposes of prosody, +syllables _long in quantity_ or _short in quantity_, syllables capable of +being arranged in groups {512} constituting feet, and feet adapted for the +construction of hexametres, pentametres, sapphics, and alcaics, just as the +Latins and Greeks had, is wholly incorrect. The English system of +versification is founded, not upon the periodic recurrence of similar +_quantities_, but upon the periodic recurrence of similar accents. + +The less incorrect method consists in giving up all ideas of the existence +of _quantity_, in the proper sense of the word, as an essential element in +English metre; whilst we admit _accent_ as its equivalent; in which case +the presence of an accent is supposed to have the same import as the +lengthening and the absence of one, as the shortening of a syllable; so +that, _mutatis mutandis_, _a_ is the equivalent to [-], and _x_ to [U]. + +In this case the metrical notation for-- + + The w['a]y was l['o]ng, the w['i]nd was c['o]ld-- + M['e]rrily, m['e]rrily, sh['a]ll I live n['o]w-- + +would be, not-- + + _x a, x a, x a, x a,_ + _a x x, a x x, a x x, a_ + +respectively, but-- + + [U - U - U - U -] + [- U U - U U - U U -] + +Again-- + + As they spl['a]sh in the bl['o]od of the sl['i]ppery stre['e]t, + +is not-- + + _x x a, x x a, x x a, x x a_, + +but + + [U U - U U - U U - U U -] + +s. 653. With this view there are a certain number of classical _feet_, with +their syllables affected in the way of _quantity_, to which they are +equivalent English _measures_ with their syllables affected in the way of +_accent_. Thus if the formula + + A, [- U] be a classical, the formula _a x_ is an English _trochee_. + B, [U -] " " _x a_ " _iambus_. + C, [- U U] " " _a x x_ " _dactyle_. + D, [U - U] " " _x a x_ " _amphibrachys_. + E, [U U -] " " _x x a_ " _anapaest_. + +{513} + +And so on in respect to the larger groups of similarly affected syllables +which constitute whole lines and stanzas; verses like + + A. C['o]me to s['e]ek for f['a]me and gl['o]ry-- + B. The w['a]y was l['o]ng, the w['i]nd was c['o]ld-- + C. M['e]rrily, m['e]rrily sh['a]ll I live n['o]w-- + D. But v['a]inly thou w['a]rrest-- + E. At the cl['o]se of the d['a]y when the h['a]mlet is st['i]ll-- + +are (A), trochaic; (B), iambic; (C), dactylic; (D), amphibrachych; and (E), +anapaestic, respectively. + +And so, with the exception of the word _amphibrachych_ (which I do not +remember to have seen) the terms have been used. And so, with the same +exception, systems of versification have been classified. + +s. 654. _Reasons against the classical nomenclature as applied to English +metres._--These lie in the two following facts:-- + +1. Certain English metres have often a very different character from their +supposed classical analogues. + +2. Certain classical _feet_ have no English equivalents. + +s. 655. _Certain English metres have often a very different metrical +character, &c._--Compare such a so-called English anapaest as-- + + As they spl['a]sh in the bl['o]od of the sl['i]ppery str['e]et-- + +with + + [Greek: Dekaton men etos tod' epei Priamou.] + +For the latter line to have the same movement as the former, it must be +read thus-- + + Dekat['o]n men et['o]s to d' ep['e]i Priam['o]u. + +Now we well know that, whatever may be any English scholar's notions of the +Greek accents, this is not the way in which he reads Greek anapaests. + +Again the _trochaic_ movement of the _iambic_ senarius is a point upon +which the most exclusive Greek metrists have insisted; urging the necessity +of reading (for example) the first line in the Hecuba-- + + H['ae]ko n['e]kron keuthm['o]na kai sk['o]tou p['y]las. + +{514} rather than-- + + Haek['o] nekr['o]n keuthm['o]na kai skot['o]u pyl['a]s. + +s. 656. I have said that _certain English metres have often a very +different metrical character_, &c. I can strengthen the reasons against the +use of classical terms in English prosody, by enlarging upon the word +_often_. The frequency of the occurrence of a difference of character +between classical and English metres similarly named is not a matter of +_accident_, but is, in many cases, a necessity arising out of the structure +of the English language as compared with that of the Greek and +Latin--especially the Greek. + +With the exception of the so-called second futures, there is no word in +Greek whereof the _last_ syllable is accented. Hence, no English line +ending with an accented syllable can have a Greek equivalent. Accent for +accent-- + + GREEK. LATIN. ENGLISH. + + _T['y]pto_, _V['o]co_ = _T['y]rant_, + _T['y]ptomen_, _Scr['i]bere_ = _M['e]rrily_, + _Keuthm['o]na_, _Vid['i]stis_ = _Dis['a]ble_, + +but no Greek word (with the exception of the so-called second futures like +[Greek: nemo]=_nem[^o]_) and (probably) no Latin word at all, is accented +like _pres['u]me_ and _caval['i]er_. + +From this it follows that although the first three measures of such +so-called English anapaests as-- + + As they spl['a]sh in the bl['o]od of the sl['i]ppery str['e]et, + +may be represented by Greek equivalents (_i. e._, equivalents in the way of +accent)-- + + Ep' om['o]isi fero['u]si ta kle['i]na-- + +a parallel to the last measure (_-ery str['e]et_) can only be got at by one +of two methods; _i. e._, by making the verse end in a so-called second +future, or else in a vowel preceded by an accented syllable, and cut off-- + + Ep' om['o]isi fer['o]usi ta kle['i]na nem['o]-- + +{515} or, + + Ep' om['o]isi fer['o]usi ta kle['i]na pros['o]p'.[70] + +Now it is clear that when, over and above the fact of certain Greek metres +having a different movement from their supposed English equivalents, there +is the additional circumstance of such an incompatibility being less an +accident than a necessary effect of difference of character in the two +languages, the use of terms suggestive of a closer likeness than either +does or ever can exist is to be condemned; and this is the case with the +words, _dactylic_, _trochaic_, _iambic_, _anapaestic_, as applied to +English versification. + +s. 657. _Certain classical feet have no English equivalents._--Whoever has +considered the principles of English prosody, must have realized the +important fact that, _ex vi termini, no English measure can have either +more or less than _one_ accented syllable_. + +On the other hand, the classical metrists have several measures in both +predicaments. Thus to go no farther than the trisyllabic feet, we have the +pyrrhic ([U U]) and tribrach ([U U U]) without a long syllable at all, and +the spondee ([- -]), amphimacer ([- U -]), and molossus ([- - -]) with more +than one long syllable. It follows, then that (even _mutatis mutandis_, +_i.e._, with the accent considered as the equivalent to the long syllable) +English pyrrhics, English tribrachs, English amphimacers, English spondees, +and English molossi are, each and all, prosodial impossibilities. + +It is submitted to the reader that the latter reason (based wholly upon the +limitations that arise out of the structure of language) strengthens the +objections of the previous section. + +s. 658. _The classical metres metrical even to English readers._ The +attention of the reader is directed to the difficulty involved in the +following (apparently or partially) contradictory facts. + +1. Accent and quantity differ; and the metrical systems founded upon them +differ also. + +{516} + +2. The classical systems are founded upon quantity. + +3. The English upon accent. + +4. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the difference of the principle upon which +they are constructed, the classical metres, even as read by Englishmen, and +read _accentually_, are metrical to English ears. + +s. 659. Preliminary to the investigation of the problem in question it is +necessary to remark-- + +1. That, the correctness or incorrectness of the English pronunciation of +the dead languages has nothing to do with the matter. Whether we read Homer +exactly, as Homer would read his own immortal poems, or whether we read +them in such a way as would be unintelligible to Homer reappearing upon +earth, is perfectly indifferent. + +2. That whether, as was indicated by the author of [Greek: Metron ariston], +we pronounce the anapaest _p[)a]t[)u]lae_, precisely as we pronounce the +dactyle _T[=i]t[)y]r[)e]_, or draw a distinction between them is also +indifferent. However much, as is done in some of the schools, we may say +_scri-bere_ rather than _scrib-ere_, or _am-or_, rather than _a-mor_, under +the notion that we are lengthening or shortening certain syllables, one +unsurmountable dilemma still remains, viz., that the shorter we pronounce +the vowel, the more we suggest the notion of the consonant which follows it +being doubled; whilst double consonants _lengthen_ the vowel which precedes +them. Hence, whilst it is certain that _patulae_ and _Tityre_ may be +pronounced (and that without hurting the metre) so as to be both of the +same _quantity_, it is doubtful what that _quantity_ is. Sound for sound +_T[)i]tyre_ may be as short as _p[)a]tulae_. Sound for sound _p[=a]ttulae_ +may be as long as _T[=i]ttyre_. + +Hence, the only assumptions requisite are-- + +_a._ That Englishmen do _not_ read the classical metres according to their +quantities. + +_b._ That, nevertheless, they find metre in them. + +s. 660. _Why are the classical metres metrical to English +readers?_--Notwithstanding the extent to which quantity differs from +accent, there is no metre so exclusively founded upon the former as to be +without a certain amount of the {517} latter; and in the majority (at +least) of the classical (and probably other) metres _there is a sufficient +amount of accentual elements to constitute metre; even independent of the +quantitative ones._ + +s. 661. _Latitude in respect to the periodicity of the recurrence of +similarly accented syllables in English._--Metre (as stated in p. 499), "is +the recurrence, within certain intervals, of syllables similarly affected." + +The particular way in which syllables are _affected_ in English metre is +that of _accent_. + +The more regular the period at which similar accents recur the more typical +the metre. + +Nevertheless absolute regularity is not requisite. + +This leads to the difference between symmetrical and unsymmetrical metres. + +s. 662. _Symmetrical metres._--Allowing for indifference of the number of +syllables in the last measure, it is evident that in all lines where the +measures are dissyllabic the syllables will be a multiple of the accents, +_i. e._, they will be twice as numerous. Hence, with three accents there +are six syllables; with four accents, eight syllables, &c. + +Similarly, in all lines where the measures are trisyllabic the syllables +will also be multiples of the accents, _i. e._, they will be thrice as +numerous. Hence, with three accents there will be nine syllables, with four +accents, twelve syllables, and with seven accents, twenty-one syllables. + +Lines of this sort may be called symmetrical. + +s. 663. _Unsymmetrical metres._--Lines, where the syllables are _not_ a +multiple of the accents, may be called unsymmetrical. Occasional specimens +of such lines occur interspersed amongst others of symmetrical character. +Where this occurs the general character of the versification may be +considered as symmetrical also. + +The case, however, is different where the whole character of the +versification is unsymmetrical, as it is in the greater part of Coleridge's +Christabel, and Byron's Siege of Corinth. {518} + + In the y['e]ar since J['e]sus di['e]d for m['e]n, + E['i]ghteen h['u]ndred ye['a]rs and t['e]n, + W['e] were a g['a]llant c['o]mpan['y], + R['i]ding o'er l['a]nd and s['a]iling o'er s['e]a. + ['O]h! but w['e] went m['e]rril['y]! + We f['o]rded the r['i]ver, and cl['o]mb the high h['i]ll, + N['e]ver our ste['e]ds for a d['a]y stood st['i]ll. + Wh['e]ther we l['a]y in the c['a]ve or the sh['e]d, + Our sle['e]p fell s['o]ft on the h['a]rdest b['e]d; + Wh['e]ther we c['o]uch'd on our r['o]ugh cap['o]te, + Or the r['o]ugher pl['a]nk of our gl['i]ding b['o]at; + Or str['e]tch'd on the be['a]ch or our s['a]ddles spr['e]ad + As a p['i]llow bene['a]th the r['e]sting h['e]ad, + Fr['e]sh we w['o]ke up['o]n the m['o]rrow. + ['A]ll our th['o]ughts and w['o]rds had sc['o]pe, + W['e] had h['e]alth and w['e] had h['o]pe, + T['o]il and tr['a]vel, b['u]t no s['o]rrow. + +s. 664. _Many_ (_perhaps all_) _classical metres on a level with the +unsymmetrical English ones_.--The following is the notation of the extract +in the preceding section. + + _x x a x a x a x a_ + _a x a x a x a_ + _a x x a x a x a_ + _a x x a x a x x a_ + _a x a x a x x_ + _x a x x a x x a x x a_ + _a x x a x x a x a_ + _a x x a x x a x x a_ + _x a x a x x a x a_ + _a x x a x x a x a_ + _x x a x a x x a x a_ + _x a x x a x x a x a_ + _x x a x x a x a x a_ + _a x a x a x a x_ + _a x a x a x a_ + _a x a x a x a_ + _a x a x a x a x_ + +Now many Latin metres present a recurrence of accent little more irregular +than the quotation just analysed. The following is the accentual formula of +the first two stanzas of the second ode of the first Book of Horace. {519} + +_Accentual Formula of the Latin Sapphic._ + + _a a x a x | a x a x a x_ + _a x x a x | a x a x a x_ + _a x x a x | a x a x a x_ + _ a x x a x_ + + _a x x a x | a x a x a x_ + _a x x a x | a x a x a x_ + _a x x a x | a x a x a x_ + _ a x x a x_ + + _Latin Asclepiad._ + + _Horace, Od._ I. I., 1-6. + + _ x a x a x x | a x x a x x_ + _ a x x a x x | a x a x a x_ + _ a x a x a x x | a x x a x x_ + _ a x a x a x | a x x a x x_ + _ a x a x a x | a x x a x x_ + _ x a x a x x | a x x a x a x_ + + _Latin Hexameter._ + + _Aen._ I., 1-5. + + _a x x a x a x a x x a x x a x_ + _x a x x a x a x x x a x x a x_ + _a x x x a x a x x x a x x a x_ + _x a x x a x a x x x a x x a x._ + +A longer list of examples would show us that, throughout the whole of the +classical metres the same accents recur, sometimes with less, and sometimes +with but very little more irregularity than they recur in the +_unsymmetrical_ metres of our own language. + +s. 665. _Conversion of English into classical metres._--In the preface to +his Translation of Aristophanes, Mr. Walsh has shown (and, I believe, for +the first time), that, by a different distribution of lines, very fair +hexameters may be made out of the well-known lines on the Burial of Sir +John Moore:-- + + Not a drum was + Heard, not a funeral note as his corse to the rampart we hurried, + Not a soldier dis- + Charged his farewell shot o'er the grave where our hero we buried. + + {520} + We buried him + Darkly at dead of night, the sods with our bayonets turning; + By the struggling + Moonbeams' misty light and the lantern dimly burning. + + Lightly they'll + Talk of the spirit that's gone, and o'er his cold ashes upbraid him, + But little he'll + Reck if they let him sleep on in the grave where a Briton has laid him. + +s. 666. Again, such lines as Coleridge's-- + + 1. Make r['e]ady my gr['a]ve clothes to-m['o]rrow; + +or Shelly's-- + + 2. L['i]quid P['e]neus was fl['o]wing, + +are the exact analogues of lines like-- + + 1. Jam l['a]cte dep['u]lsum le['o]nem, + +and + + 2. Gr['a]to P['y]rrha sub ['a]ntro. + +s. 667. The rationale of so remarkable a phaenomenon as _regularity of +accent in verses considered to have been composed with a view to quantity +only_ has yet to be investigated. That it was necessary to the structure of +the metres in question is certain. + +s. 668. _Caesura._--The _caesura_ of the classical metrists is the result +of-- + +1. The necessity in the classical metres (as just indicated) of an accented +syllable in certain parts of the verses. + +2. The nearly total absence in the classical languages of words with an +accent on the last syllable. + +From the joint effect of these two causes, it follows that in certain parts +of a verse no final syllable can occur, or (changing the expression) no +word can terminate. + +Thus, in a language consisting chiefly of dissyllables, of which the first +alone was accented, and in a metre which required the sixth syllable to be +accented, the fifth and seventh would each be at end of words, and that +simply because the sixth was not. + +Whilst in a language consisting chiefly of either dissyllables or +trisyllables, and in a metre of the same sort as before, {521} if the fifth +were not final, the seventh would be so, or _vice versa_. + +s. 669. _Caesura_ means _cutting_. In a language destitute of words +accented on the last syllable, and in a metre requiring the sixth syllable +to be accented, a measure (foot) of either the formula _x a_, or _x x a_ +(_i. e._, a measure with the accent at the end), except in the case of +words of four or more syllables, must always be either itself divided, or +else cause the division of the following measures--_division_ meaning the +distribution of the syllables of the measure (foot) over two or more words. +Thus-- + +_a._ If the accented syllable (the sixth) be the first of a word of any +length, the preceding one (the fifth) must be the final one of the word +which went before; in which case the first and last parts belong to +different words, and the measure (foot) is divided or _cut_. + +_b._ If the accented syllable (the sixth) be the second of a word of three +syllables, the succeeding one which is at the end of the word, is the first +part of the measure which follows; in which case the first and last parts +of the measure (foot) which follows the accented syllable is divided or +_cut_. + +As the _caesura_, or the necessity for dividing certain measures between +two words, arises out of the structure of language, it only occurs in +tongues where there is a notable absence of words accented on the last +syllable. Consequently there is no caesura[71] in the English. + +s. 670. As far as accent is concerned, the classical poets write in +_measures_ rather than _feet_. See p. 505. + +{522} + +s. 671. Although the idea of writing English hexameters, &c., on the +principle of an accent in a measure taking the place of the long syllables +in a foot, is chimerical; it is perfectly practicable to write English +verses upon the same {523} principle which the classics themselves have +written on, _i.e._, with accents recurring within certain limits; in which +case the so-called classical metre is merely an unsymmetrical verse of a +new kind. This may be either blank verse or rhyme. + +{524} + +s. 672. The chief reason against the naturalization of metres of the sort +in question (over and above the practical one of our having another kind in +use already), lies in the fact of their being perplexing to the readers who +have _not_ been {525} trained to classical cadences, whilst they suggest +and violate the idea of _quantity_ to those who have. + +_Why_ his idea of quantity is violated may be seen in p. 165. + +{526} + +s. 673. _Convertible metres._--Such a line as-- + + Ere her faithless sons betray'd her, + +may be read in two ways. We may either lay full stress upon the word _ere_, +and read-- + + ['E]re her fa['i]thless s['o]ns betr['a]y'd her; + +or we may lay little or no stress upon either _ere_ or _her_, reserving the +full accentuation for the syllable _faith-_ in _faithless_, in which case +the reading would be + + Ere her fa['i]thless s['o]ns betr['a]y'd her. + +Lines of this sort may be called examples of _convertible metres_, since by +changing the accent a dissyllabic line may be converted into one partially +trisyllabic, and _vice vers[^a]_. + +This property of convertibility is explained by the fact of accentuation +being _a relative quality_. In the example before us _ere_ is sufficiently +strongly accented to stand in contrast to _her_, but it is not sufficiently +strongly accented to stand upon a par with the _faith-_ in _faithless_ if +decidedly pronounced. + +The real character of convertible lines is determined from the character of +the lines with which they are associated. {527} That the second mode of +reading the line in question is the proper one, may be shown by reference +to the stanza wherein it occurs. + + Let ['E]rin rem['e]mber her d['a]ys of ['o]ld, + Ere her fa['i]thless s['o]ns betr['a]y'd her, + When M['a]lachi w['o]re the c['o]llar of g['o]ld, + Which he w['o]n from the pr['o]ud inv['a]der. + +Again, such a line as + + For the glory I have lost, + +although it may be read + + For the gl['o]ry I have l['o]st, + +would be read improperly. The stanza wherein it occurs is essentially +dissyllabic (_a x_). + + He['e]d, oh he['e]d my f['a]tal st['o]ry! + ['I] am H['o]sier's ['i]njured gh['o]st, + C['o]me to se['e]k for f['a]me and gl['o]ry-- + F['o]r the gl['o]ry ['I] have l['o]st. + +s. 674. _Metrical and grammatical combinations._--Words, or parts of words, +that are combined as measures, are words, or parts of words, combined +_metrically_, or in _metrical combination_. + +{528} + +Syllables combined as words, or words combined as portions of a sentence, +are syllables and words _grammatically combined_, or in _grammatical +combination_. + +The syllables _ere her faith-_ form a metrical combination. + +The words _her faithless sons_ form a grammatical combination. + +When the syllables contained in the same measure (or connected metrically) +are also contained in the same construction (or connected grammatically), +the metrical and the grammatical combinations coincide. Such is the case +with the line + + Rem['e]mber | the gl['o]ries | of Br['i]an | the Br['a]ve; + +where the same division separates both the measure and the subdivisions of +the sense, inasmuch as the word _the_ is connected with the word _glories_ +equally in grammar and in metre, in syntax and in prosody. So is _of_ with +_Brian_, and _the_ with _Brave_. + +Contrast with this such a line as + + A chieftain to the Highlands bound. + +Here the metrical division is one thing, the grammatical division another, +and there is no coincidence. + +_Metrical_, + + A ch['i]ef | tain t['o] | the H['i]gh | lands b['o]und. + +_Grammatical_, + + A chieftain | to the Highlands | bound. + +In the following stanza the coincidence of the metrical and grammatical +combination is nearly complete:-- + + To ['a]rms! to ['a]rms! The s['e]rfs, they r['o]am + O'er h['i]ll, and d['a]le, and gl['e]n: + The k['i]ng is de['a]d, and t['i]me is c['o]me + To cho['o]se a chi['e]f ag['a]in. + +In + + W['a]rriors or chi['e]fs, should the sh['a]ft or the sw['o]rd + Pi['e]rce me in l['e]ading the h['o]st of the L['o]rd, + He['e]d not the c['o]rse, though a k['i]ng's in your p['a]th, + B['u]ry your st['e]el in the b['o]soms of G['a]th.--BYRON. + +there is a non-coincidence equally complete. + +s. 675. _Rhythm._--The character of a metre is marked and prominent in +proportion as the metrical and the grammatical {529} combinations coincide. +The extent to which the measure _a x x_ is the basis of the stanza last +quoted is concealed by the antagonism of the metre and the construction. If +it were not for the axiom, that _every metre is to be considered uniform +until there is proof to the contrary_, the lines might be divided thus:-- + + _a x, x a, x x a, x x a,_ + _a x, x a x, x a x, x a,_ + _a x, x a, x x a, x x a,_ + _a x, x a x, x a x, x a._ + +The variety which arises in versification from the different degrees of the +coincidence and non-coincidence between the metrical and grammatical +combinations may be called _rhythm_. + +s. 676. _Constant and inconstant parts of a rhythm._--See s. 636. Of the +three parts or elements of a rhyme, the vowel and the part which follows +the vowel are _constant_, _i.e._, they cannot be changed without changing +or destroying the rhyme. In _told_ and _bold_, _plunder_, _blunder_, both +the _o_ or _u_ on one side, and the _-ld_ or _-nder_ on the other are +immutable. + +Of the three parts, or elements, of a rhyme the part which precedes the +vowel is _inconstant_, _i.e_, it must be changed in order to effect the +rhyme. Thus, _old_ and _old_, _told_ and _told_, _bold_ and _bold_, do +_not_ rhyme with each other; although _old_, _bold_, _told_, _scold_, &c. +do. + +_Rule 1._ In two or more syllables that rhyme with each other, neither the +vowel nor the sounds which _follow_ it can be _different_. + +_Rule 2._ In two or more syllables that rhyme with each other, the sounds +which _precede_ the vowel cannot be _alike_. + +Now the number of sounds which can precede a vowel is limited: it is that +of the consonants and consonantal combinations; of which a list can be made +_a priori_. + + _p_ _pl_ _pr_ _b_ _bl_ _br_ + _f_ _fl_ _fr_ _v_ _vl_ _vr_ + _t_ _tl_ _tr_ _d_ _dl_ _dr_ + _th_ _thl_ _thr_ _dh_ _dhl_ _dhr_ + _k_ _kl_ _kr_ _g_ _gl_ _gr_ + _s_ _sp_ _sf_ _st_ _sth,_ _&c._ + +and so on, the combinations of s being the most complex. {530} + +This gives us the following method (or receipt) for the discovery of +rhymes:-- + +1. Divide the word to which a rhyme is required, into its _constant_ and +_inconstant_ elements. + +2. Make up the inconstant element by the different consonants and +consonantal combinations until they are exhausted. + +3. In the list of words so formed, mark off those which have an existence +in the language; these will all rhyme with each other; and if the list of +combinations be exhaustive, there are no other words which will do so. + +_Example._--From the word _told_, separate the _o_ and _-ld_, which are +constant. + +Instead of the inconstant element _t_, write successively, _p_, _pl_, _pr_, +_b_, _bl_, _br_, &c.: so that you have the following list:--_t-old_, +_p-old_, _pl-old_, _pr-old_, _b-old_, _bl-old_, _br-old_, &c. + +Of these _plold_, _blold_, and _brold_, have no existence in the language; +the rest, however, are rhymes. + +s. 677. All words have the same number of possible, but not the same number +of actual rhymes. Thus, _silver_ is a word amenable to the same process as +_told--pilver_, _plilver_, _prilver_, _bilver_, &c.; yet _silver_ is a word +without a corresponding rhyme. This is because the combinations which +answer to it do not constitute words, or combinations of words in the +English language. + +This has been written, not for the sake of showing poets how to manufacture +rhymes, but in order to prove that a result which apparently depends on the +ingenuity of writers, is reducible to a very humble mechanical process, +founded upon the nature of rhyme and the limits to the combinations of +consonants. + + * * * * * + + +{531} + +PART VII. + +THE DIALECTS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. + +s. 678. The consideration of the dialects of the English language is best +taken in hand after the historical investigation of the elements of the +English population. For this, see Part I. + +It is also best taken in hand after the analysis of the grammatical +structure of the language. For this, see Part IV. + +This is because both the last-named subjects are necessary as +preliminaries. The structure of the language supplies us with the points in +which one dialect may differ from another, whilst the history of the +immigrant populations may furnish an ethnological reason for such +differences as are found to occur. + +For a further illustration of this see pp. 4, 5. + +s. 679. By putting together the history of the migrations into a country, +and the grammatical structure of the language which they introduced, we +find that there are two methods of classifying the dialects. These may be +called the ethnological, and the structural methods. + +According to the former, we place in the same class those dialects which +were introduced by the same section of immigrants. Thus, a body of Germans, +starting from the same part of Germany, and belonging to the same section +of the Germanic population, even if, whilst at sea, they separated into +two, three, or more divisions, and landed upon widely separated portions of +Great Britain, would introduce dialects which were allied _ethnologically_; +even though, by one of them changing rapidly, and the others not changing +at all, they might, in their external characters, differ from each other, +and agree with dialects of a different introduction. Hence, the +ethnological principle is essentially historical, and {532} is based upon +the idea of _affiliation_ or affinity in the way of descent. + +The _structural_ principle is different. Two dialects introduced by +different sections (perhaps it would be better to say _sub_-sections) of an +immigrant population may suffer similar changes; _e. g._, they may lose the +same inflexions, adopt similar euphonic processes, or incorporate the same +words. In this case, their external characters become mutually alike. +Hence, if we take two (or move) such dialects, and place them in the same +class, we do so simply because they are alike; not because they are +affiliated. + +Such are the two chief principles of classification. Generally, they +coincide; in other words, similarity of external characters is _prim[^a] +facie_ evidence of affinity in the way of affiliation, identity of origin +being the safest assumption in the way of cause; whilst identity of origin +is generally a sufficient ground for calculating upon similarity of +external form; such being, _a priori_, its probable effect. + +Still, the evidence of one in favour of the other is only _prim[^a] facie_ +evidence. Dialects of the same origin may grow unlike; dialects of +different origins alike. + +s. 680. The causes, then, which determine those minute differences of +language, which go by the name of _dialects_ are twofold.--1. Original +difference; 2. Subsequent change. + +s. 681. The original difference between the two sections (or +_sub_-sections) of an immigrant population are referable to either--1. +Difference of locality in respect to the portion of the country from which +they originated; or 2. Difference in the date of the invasion. + +Two bodies of immigrants, one from the Eyder, and the other from the +Scheldt, even if they left their respective localities on the same day of +the same month, would most probably differ from one another; and that in +the same way that a Yorkshireman differs from a Hampshire man. + +On the other hand, two bodies of immigrants, each leaving the very same +locality, but one in 200 A.D., and the other in 500 A.D., would also, most +probably, differ; and that as a Yorkshireman of 1850 A.D. differs from one +of 1550 A.D. {533} + +s. 682. The subsequent changes which may affect the dialect of an immigrant +population are chiefly referable to either, 1. Influences exerted by the +dialects of the aborigines of the invaded country; 2. Influences of simple +growth, or development. A dialect introduced from Germany to a portion of +Great Britain, where the aborigines spoke Gaelic, would (if affected at all +by the indigenous dialect) be differently affected from a dialect similarly +circumstanced in a British, Welsh, and Cambrian district. + +A language which changes rapidly, will, at the end of a certain period, +wear a different aspect from one which changes slowly. + +s. 683. A full and perfect apparatus for the minute philology of the +dialects of a country like Great Britain, would consist in-- + +1. The exact details of the present provincialisms. + +2. The details of the history of each dialect through all its stages. + +3. The exact details of the provincialisms of the whole of that part of +Germany which contributed, or is supposed to have contributed, to the +Anglo-Saxon immigration. + +4. The details of the original languages or dialects of the Aboriginal +Britons at the time of the different invasions. + +This last is both the least important and the most unattainable. + +s. 684. Such are the preliminaries which are wanted for the purposes of +investigation. Others are requisite for the proper understanding of the +facts already ascertained, and the doctrines generally admitted; the +present writer believing that these two classes are by no means +coextensive. + +Of such preliminaries, the most important are those connected with 1. the +structure of language, and 2. the history of individual documents; in other +words, certain points of philology, and certain points of bibliography. + +s. 685. _Philological preliminaries._--These are points of pronunciation, +points of grammatical structure, and glossarial peculiarities. It is only +the first two which will be noticed. They occur in 1. the modern, 2. the +ancient local forms of speech. {534} + +s. 686. _Present provincial dialects._--In the way of grammar we find, in +the present provincial dialects (amongst many others), the following old +forms-- + +1. A plural in _en_--_we call-en_, _ye call-en_, they _call-en_. Respecting +this, the writer in the Quarterly Review, has the following doctrine:-- + +"It appears to have been popularly known, if not in East Anglia proper, at +all events in the district immediately to the westward, since we find it in +Orm, in an Eastern-Midland copy of the Rule of Nuns, saec. XIII., and in +process of time in Suffolk. Various conjectures have been advanced as to +the origin of this form, of which we have no certain examples before the +thirteenth century.[72] We believe the true state of the case to have been +as follows. It is well known that the Saxon dialects differ from the +Gothic, Old-German, &c. in the form of the present indicative +plural--making all three persons to end in _-ath_ or +_-ad_;_--we--[gh]e--hi--lufi-ath_ (_-ad_). Schmeller and other German +philologists observe that a nasal has been here elided, the true ancient +form being _-and_, _-ant_, or _-ent_. Traces of this termination are found +in the Cotton MS. of the Old Saxon Evangelical Harmony, and still more +abundantly in the popular dialects of the Middle-Rhenish district from +Cologne to the borders of Switzerland. These not only exhibit the full +termination _-ent_, but also two modifications of it, one dropping the +nasal and the other the dental. _E.g._:-- + + Pres. Indic. Plur. 1, 2, 3 liebent; + " " lieb-et; + " " lieb-en; + +--the last exactly corresponding with the Mercian. It is remarkable that +none of the above forms appear in classical German compositions, while they +abound in the Miracle-plays, vernacular sermons, and similar productions of +the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, specially addressed to the +uneducated classes. We may, therefore, reasonably conclude from analogy +that similar forms were popularly current in our midland counties, +gradually insinuating themselves into the {535} written language. We have +plenty of examples of similar phenomena. It would be difficult to find +written instances of the pronouns _scho_, or _she_, _their_, _you_, the +auxiliaries _sal_, _suld_, &c., before the twelfth century; but their +extensive prevalence in the thirteenth proves that they must have been +popularly employed somewhere even in times which have left us no +documentary evidence of their existence." + +I prefer to consider this termination as _-en_, a mere extension of the +subjunctive form to the indicative. + +2. An infinitive form in _-ie_; as to _sowie_, to _reapie_,--Wiltshire. +(Mr. Guest). + +3. The participial form in _-and_; as _goand_, _slepand_,--Lincolnshire +(?), Northumberland, Scotland. + +4. The common use of the termination _-th_ in the third person present; +_goeth_, _hath_, _speaketh_,--Devonshire. + +5. Plural forms in _-en_; as _housen_,--Leicestershire and elsewhere. + +6. Old preterite forms of certain verbs; as, + + _Clom_, from _climb_, Hereford and elsewhere. + _Hove_, -- _heave_, ditto. + _Puck_, -- _pick_, ditto. + _Shuck_, -- _shook_, ditto. + _Squoze_, -- _squeeze_, ditto. + _Shew_, -- _sow_, Essex. + _Rep_, -- _reap_, ditto. + _Mew_, -- _mow_, ditto, &c. + +The following changes (a few out of many) are matters not of grammar, but +of pronunciation:-- + +Ui for _oo_--_cuil_, _bluid_, for _cool_, _blood_,--Cumberland, Scotland. + +Oy for _i_--_foyne_, _twoyne_, for _fine_, _twine_,--Cheshire, +Cambridgeshire, Suffolk. + +Oy for _oo_--_foyt_ for _foot_,--Halifax. + +Oy for _o_--_noite_, _foil_, _coil_, _hoil_, for _note_, _foal_, _coal_, +_hole_,--Halifax. + +Oy for _a_--_loyne_ for _lane_,--Halifax. + +Ooy for _oo_--_nooin_, _gooise_, _fooil_, _tooil_, for _noon_, _goose_, +_fool_, _tool_,--Halifax. {536} + +W inserted (with or without a modification)--as _spwort_, _scworn_, +_whoam_, for _sport_, _scorn_, _home_,--Cumberland, West Riding of +Yorkshire. + +Ew for _oo_, or _yoo_--_tewn_ for _tune_,--Suffolk, Westmoreland. + +Iv for _oo_, or _yoo_ when a vowel follows--as _Samivel_ for _Samuel_; +_Emmanivel_ for _Emmanuel_. In all these we have seen a tendency to +_diphthongal_ sounds. + +In the following instances the practice is reversed, and instead of the +vowel being made a diphthong, the diphthong becomes a vowel, as, + +O for _oy_--_boh_ for _boy_, Suffolk, &c. + +Oo for _ow_--_broon_ for _brown_,--Bilsdale. + +Ee for _i_--_neet_ for _night_,--Cheshire. + +O for _ou_--_bawn'_ for _bound_,--Westmoreland. + +Of these the substitution of _oo_ for _ow_, and of _ee_ for _i_, are of +importance in the questions of the Appendix. + +[=E][=e] for _a_--_theere_ for _there_,--Cumberland. + +[=E][=e] for _[)e]_--_reed_, _seeven_, for _red_, _seven_,--Cumberland, +Craven. + +[=A] for _[=o]_--_sair_, _mair_, _baith_, for _sore_, _more_, +_both_,--Cumberland, Scotland. + +[)A] for _[)o]_--_saft_ for _soft_,--Cheshire. + +O for _[)a]_--_mon_ for _man_,--Cheshire. _Lond_ for _land_,--East-Anglian +Semi-Saxon. + +_Y_ inserted before a vowel--_styake_, _ryape_, for _stake_, +_rope_,--Borrowdale; especially after _g_ (a point to be noticed), +_gyarden_, _gyown_, for _garden_, _gown_,--Warwickshire, &c.; and at the +beginning of a word, as _yat_, _yan_, for _ate_, _one_ +(_ane_),--Westmoreland, Bilsdale. + +_H_ inserted--_hafter_, _hoppen_, for _after_, _open_,--Westmoreland, &c. + +_H_ omitted--_at_, _ard_, for _hat_, _hard_,--_Passim_. + +_Transition of Consonants._ + +_B_ for _v_--_Whitehebbon_ for _Whitehaven_,--Borrowdale. + +_P_ for _b_--_poat_ for _boat_.--Welsh pronunciation of many English words. +See the speeches of Sir Hugh Evans in Merry Wives of Windsor. + +_V_ for _f_--_vind_ for _find_,--characteristic of Devonshire, Kent. {537} + +_T_ for _d_ (final)--_deet_ for _deed_,--Borrowdale. + +_T_ for _ch_ (_tsh_)--_fet_ for _fetch_,--Devonshire. + +_D_ for _j_ (_dzh_)--_sled_ for _sledge_,--Hereford. + +_D_ for _th_ (_th_)--_wid_=_with_; _tudder_=_the other_,--Borrowdale, +Westmoreland. Initial (especially before a consonant)--_drash_, +_droo_=_thrash_, _through_,--Devonshire, Wilts. + +_K_ for _ch_ (_tsh_)--_thack_, _pick_, for _thatch_, +_pitch_,--Westmoreland, Lincolnshire, Halifax. + +_G_ for _j_ (_dzh_)--_brig_ for _bridge_--Lincolnshire, Hereford. + +_G_ preserved from the Anglo-Saxon--_lig_, _lie_. Anglo-Saxon, +_licgan_,--Lincolnshire, North of England. + +_Z_ for _s_--_zee_ for _see_,--Devonshire. + +_S_ for _sh_--_sall_ for _shall_,--Craven, Scotland. + +_Y_ for _g_--_yet_ for _gate_,--Yorkshire, Scotland. + +_W_ for _v_--_wiew_ for _view_,--Essex, London. + +_N_ for _ng_--_bleedin_ for _bleeding_,--Cumberland, Scotland. + +_Sk_ for _sh_--_busk_ for _bush_,--Halifax. + +_Ejection of Letters._ + +_K_ before _s_, the preceding vowel being lengthened by way of +compensation--_neist_ for _next_, _seist_ for _sixth_,--Halifax. + +_D_ and _v_ after a consonant--_gol_ for _gold_, _siller_ for +_silver_,--Suffolk. The ejection of _f_ is rarer; _mysel_ for _myself_, +however, occurs in most dialects. + +_L_ final, after a short vowel,--in which case the vowel is +lengthened--_poo_ for _pull_,--Cheshire, Scotland. + +_Al_ changed to _a_ open--_hawf_ for _half_, _saumo_n for +_salmon_,--Cumberland, Scotland. + +_Transposition._ + +Transpositions of the liquid _r_ are common in all our provincial dialects; +as _gars_, _brid_, _perty_, for _grass_, _bird_, _pretty_. Here the +provincial forms are the oldest, _gaers_, _brid_, &c., being the +Anglo-Saxon forms. Again; _acsian_, Anglo-Saxon=_ask_, English. + +s. 687. _Ancient forms of speech._--In the way of grammar-- + +1. The _ge-_ (see s. 409), prefixed to the past participle +(_ge-boren_=_borne_) is, in certain localities,[73] omitted. + +{538} + +2. The present[74] plural form _-s_, encroaches upon the form in _-n_. +Thus, _munuces_=_munucan_=_monks_. + +3. The infinitive ends in _-a_, instead of _-an_. This is Scandinavian, but +it is also Frisian. + +4. The particle _at_ is used instead of _to_ before the infinitive verb. + +5. The article[74] _the_ is used instead of _se_, _seo_, _thaet_=[Greek: +ho, he, to], for both the numbers, and all the cases and genders. + +6. The form in _-s_ (_use_, _usse_) replaces _ure_=_our_. + +In the way of sound-- + +1. Forms with the slenderer, or more vocalic[74] sounds, replace forms +which in the West-Saxon are broad or diphthongal.[75] Beda mentions that +_Coelin_ is the Northumbrian form of _Ceawlin_. + +2. The simple[74] sound of _k_ replaces the combination out of which the +modern sound of _ch_ has been evolved. + +3. The sound of _sk_ replaces either the _sh_, or the sound out of which it +has been evolved. + +The meaning of these last two statements is explained by the following +extract: "Another characteristic is the infusion of Scandinavian words, of +which there are slight traces in monuments of the tenth century, and strong +and unequivocal ones in those of the thirteenth and fourteenth. Some of the +above criteria may be verified by a simple and obvious process, namely, a +reference to the topographical nomenclature of our provinces. Whoever takes +the trouble to consult the Gazetteer of England will find, that of our +numerous 'Carltons' not one is to be met with south of the Mersey, west of +the Staffordshire Tame, or south of the Thames; and that 'Fiskertons,' +'Skiptons,' 'Skelbrookes,' and a whole host of similar names are equally +_introuvables_ in the same district. They are, with scarcely a single +exception, northern or eastern; and we know from Aelfric's Glossary, from +Domesday and the Chartularies, that this distinction of pronunciation was +established as early as the eleventh century. 'Kirby' or 'Kirkby,' is a +specimen of joint Anglian and {539} Scandinavian influence, furnishing a +clue to the ethnology of the district wherever it occurs. The converse of +this rule does not hold with equal universality, various causes having +gradually introduced soft palatal sounds into districts to which they did +not properly belong. Such are, however, of very partial occurrence, and +form the exception rather than the rule."--_Quarterly Review_, No. CLXIV. + +_Bibliographical preliminaries._--The leading facts here are the difference +between 1. the locality of the authorship, and 2, the locality of the +transcription of a book. + +Thus: the composition of a Devonshire poet may find readers in +Northumberland, and his work be transcribed by Northumbrian copyist. Now +this Northumbrian copyist may do one of two things: he may transcribe the +Devonian production _verbatim et literatim_; in which case his countrymen +read the MS. just as a Londoner reads Burns, _i.e._, in the dialect of the +writer, and not in the dialect of the reader. On the other hand, he may +_accommodate_ as well as transcribe, _i.e._, he may change the +_non_-Northumbrian into Northumbrian expressions, in which case his +countrymen read the MS. in their own rather than the writer's dialect. + +Now it is clear, that in a literature where transcription, _combined with +accommodation_, is as common as _simple_ transcription, we are never sure +of knowing the dialect of an author unless we also know the dialect of his +transcriber. In no literature is there more of this _semi_-translation than +in the Anglo-Saxon and the early English; a fact which sometimes raises +difficulties, by disconnecting the evidence of authorship with the +otherwise natural inferences as to the dialect employed; whilst, at others, +it smoothes them away by supplying as many specimens of fresh dialects, as +there are extant MSS. of an often copied composition. + +Inquiring whether certain peculiarities of dialect in Layamon's Brut, +really emanated from the author, a writer in the Quarterly Review, (No. +clxiv.) remarks, that to decide this it "would be necessary to have access +either to the priest's autograph, or to a more faithful copy of it than it +was the practice to make either in his age or the succeeding {540} ones. A +transcriber of an early English composition followed his own ideas of +language, grammar, and orthography; and if he did not entirely obliterate +the characteristic peculiarities of his original, he was pretty sure, like +the Conde de Olivares, 'd'y meter beaucour du sein.' The practical proof of +this is to be found in the existing copies of those works, almost every one +of which exhibits some peculiarity of features. We have 'Trevisa' and +'Robert of Gloucester,' in two distinct forms--'Pier's Ploughman,' in at +least three, and 'Hampole's Pricke of Conscience,' in half a dozen, without +any absolute certainty which approximates most to what the authors wrote. +With regard to Layamon, it might be supposed that the older copy is the +more likely to represent the original; but we have internal evidence that +it is not the priest's autograph; and it is impossible to know what +alterations it may have undergone in the course of one or more +transcriptions." + +Again, in noticing the orthography of the Ormulum (alluded to in the +present volume, s. 266), he writes: "It is true that in this instance we +have the rare advantage of possessing the author's autograph, a +circumstance which cannot with confidence be predicated of any other +considerable work of the same period. The author was, moreover, as Mr. +Thorpe observes, a kind of critic in his own language; and we therefore +find in his work, a regularity of orthography, grammar, and metre, hardly +to be paralleled in the same age. All this might, in a great measure, +disappear in the very next copy; for fidelity of transcription was no +virtue of the thirteenth or the fourteenth century; at least with respect +to vernacular works. It becomes, therefore, in many cases a problem of no +small complication, to decide with certainty respecting the original metre, +or language, of a given mediaeval composition, with such data as we now +possess." + +From all this it follows, that the inquirer must talk of _copies_ rather +than of _authors_. + +s. 688. _Caution._--Differences of spelling do not always imply differences +of pronunciation; perhaps they may be _prim[^a] facie_ of such. Still it is +uncritical to be over-hasty in {541} separating, as specimens of _dialect_, +works which, perhaps, only differ in being specimens of separate +_orthographies_. + +s. 689. _Caution._--The accommodation of a transcribed work is susceptible +of _degrees_. It may go so far as absolutely to replace one dialect by +another, or it may go no farther than the omission of the more +unintelligible expressions, and the substitution of others more familiar. I +again quote the Quarterly Review,--"There are very few matters more +difficult than to determine _[`a] priori_, in what precise form a +vernacular composition of the thirteenth century might be written, or what +form it might assume in a very short period. Among the Anglo-Saxon charters +of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, many are modelled upon the literary +Anglo-Saxon, with a few slight changes of orthography and inflection; while +others abound with dialectical peculiarities of various sorts. Those +peculiarities may generally be accounted for from local causes. An +East-Anglian scribe does not employ broad western forms, nor a West of +England man East-Anglian ones; though each might keep his provincial +peculiarities out of sight, and produce something not materially different +from the language of Aelfric." + +s. 690. _Caution._--In the Reeve's Tale, Chaucer puts into the mouth of one +of his north-country clerks, a native of the Strother, in the north-west +part of the deanery of Craven, where the Northumbrian dialect rather +preponderates over the Anglian, certain Yorkshire glosses. "Chaucer[76] +undoubtedly copied the language of some native; and the general accuracy, +with which he gives it, shows that he was an attentive observer of all that +passed around him. + +"We subjoin an extract from the poem, in order to give our readers an +opportunity of comparing southern and northern English, as they co-existed +in the fifteenth century. It is from a MS. that has never been collated; +but which we believe to be well worthy the attention of any future editor +of the Canterbury Tales. The italics denote variations from the printed +text:-- + +{542} + + "John highte that oon and Aleyn highte that other: + Of _oo_ toun were thei born that highte Strother, + Ffer in the north I can not tellen where. + This Aleyn maketh redy al his gere-- + And on an hors the sak he caste anoon. + Fforth goth Aleyn the clerk and also John, + With good swerde and bokeler by his side. + John knewe the weye--hym nedes no gide; + And atte melle the sak a down he layth. + Aleyn spak first: Al heyle, Symond--in fayth-- + How fares thi fayre daughter and thi wyf? + Aleyn welcome--quod Symkyn--be my lyf-- + And John also--how now, what do ye here? + By God, quod John--Symond, nede has _na_ pere. + Hym bihoves _to_ serve him self that has na swayn; + Or _ellis_ he is a fool as clerkes sayn. + Oure maunciple I hope he wil be ded-- + Swa _werkes hym_ ay the wanges in his heed. + And therefore is I come and eek Aleyn-- + To grynde oure corn, and carye it _ham_ agayne, + I pray yow _spedes_[77] us _hethen_ that ye may. + It shal be done, quod Symkyn, by my fay! + What wol ye done while it is in hande? + By God, right by the hoper wol I stande, + Quod John, and see _how gates_ the corn gas inne; + _Yit_ saugh I never, by my fader kynne, + How that the hoper wagges til and fra! + Aleyn answerde--John wil _ye_ swa? + Than wil I be bynethe, by my crown, + And se _how gates_ the mele falles down + In til the trough--that sal be my disport. + _Quod John_--In faith, I is of youre sort-- + I is as ille a meller as _are_ ye. + * * * * * * + And when the mele is sakked and ybounde, + This John goth out and fynt his hors away-- + And gan to crie, harow, and wele away!-- + Our hors is lost--Aleyn, for Godde's banes, + Stepe on thi feet--come of man attanes! + Allas, oure wardeyn has his palfrey lorn! + This Aleyn al forgat bothe mele and corn-- + {543} + Al was out of his mynde, his housbonderie. + What--whilke way is he goon? he gan to crie. + The wyf come lepynge _in_ at a ren; + She saide--Allas, youre hors goth to the fen + With wylde mares, as faste as he may go. + Unthank come on this hand that _band_ him so-- + And he that _bet_ sholde have knet the reyne. + Alas! quod John, Alayn, for Criste's peyne, + Lay down thi swerde, and I _wil_ myn alswa; + I is ful _swift_--God wat--as is a ra-- + By Goddes _herte_ he sal nought scape us bathe. + Why ne hadde thou put the capel in the lathe? + Il hayl, by God, Aleyn, thou _is_ fonne." + +"Excepting the obsolete forms _hethen_ (hence), _swa_, _lorn_, _whilke_, +_alswa_, _capel_--all the above provincialisms are still, more or less, +current in the north-west part of Yorkshire. _Na_, _ham_(e), _fra_, +_banes_, _attanes_, _ra_, _bathe_, are pure Northumbrian. _Wang_ (cheek or +temple) is seldom heard, except in the phrase _wang tooth_, _dens molaris_. +_Ill_, adj., for _bad_--_lathe_ (barn)--and _fond_ (foolish)--are most +frequently and familiarly used in the West Riding, or its immediate +borders." + +Now this indicates a class of writings which, in the critical history of +our local dialect, must be used with great caution and address. An +imitation of dialect may be so lax as to let its only merit consist in a +deviation from the standard idiom. + +In the Lear of Shakspeare we have speeches from a Kentish clown. Is this +the dialect of the character, the dialect of the writer, or is it some +conventional dialect appropriated to theatrical purposes? I think the +latter. + +In Ben Jonson's Tale of a Tub, one (and more than one of the characters) +speaks thus. His residence is the neighbourhood of London, Tottenham Court. + + Is it no sand? nor buttermilk? if't be, + Ich 'am no zive, or watering-pot, to draw + Knots in your 'casions. If you trust me, zo-- + If not, _pra_forme 't your zelves, '_C_ham no man's wife, + But resolute Hilts: you'll vind me in the buttry. + + _Act_ I. _Scene_ 1. + +{544} + +I consider that this represents the dialect of the neighbourhood of London, +not on the strength of its being put in the mouth of a man of Tottenham, +but from other and independent circumstances. + +Not so, however, with the provincialisms of another of Ben Jonson's plays, +the Sad Shepherd:-- + + ---- shew your sell + Tu all the sheepards, bauldly; gaing amang hem. + Be mickle in their eye, frequent and fugeand. + And, gif they ask ye of Eiarine, + Or of these claithes; say that I ga' hem ye, + And say no more. I ha' that wark in hand, + That web upon the luime, sall gar em thinke. + + _Act_ II. _Scene_ 3. + +The scene of the play is Sherwood Forest: the language, however, as far as +I may venture an opinion, is not the language from which the present +Nottinghamshire dialect has come down. + +s. 691. _Caution._--Again, the word _old_, as applied to language, has a +double meaning. + +The language of the United States was imported from England into America in +the reign of Queen Elizabeth. The language of South Australia has been +introduced within the present generation. In one sense, the American +English is older than the Australian. It was earliest separated from the +mother-tongue. + +The language, however, of America may (I speak only in the way of +illustration, and consequently hypothetically), in the course of time, +become the least old of the two; the word _old_ being taken in another +sense. It may change with greater rapidity. It may lose its inflections. It +may depart more from the structure of the mother-tongue, and preserve fewer +of its _old_ elements. In this sense the Australian (provided that it has +altered least, and that it retain the greatest number of the _old_ +inflections) will be the older tongue of the two. + +Now what may be said of the language of two countries, may be said of the +dialects of two districts. The one dialect may run its changes apace; the +other alter but by degrees. {545} Hence, of two works in two such dialects, +the one would appear older than the other, although in reality the two were +cotemporary. + +Hence, also, it is a lax expression to say that it is the old forms (the +archaisms) that the provincial dialects retain. The provincial forms are +archaic only when the current language changes more rapidly than the local +idiom. When the local idiom changes fastest, the archaic forms belong to +the standard mode of speech. + +The provincial forms, _goand_, _slepand_, for _going_ and _sleeping_, are +archaic. Here the archaism is with the provincial form. + +The forms _almost_, _horses_, _nought but_, contrasted with the +provincialisms _ommost_, _hosses_, _nobbot_, are archaic. They have not +been changed so much as they will be. Here the archaism (that is, the +nearer approach to the older form) is with the standard idiom. A +sequestered locality is preservative of old forms. But writing and +education are preservatives of them also. + +s. 692. With these preliminaries a brief notice of the English dialects, in +their different stages, may begin. + +_The districts north of the Humber._--There is so large an amount of +specimens of the dialects of this area in the Anglo-Saxon stage of our +language, the area itself so closely coincides with the political division +of the kingdom of Northumberland, whilst the present arrangement (more or +less provisional) of the Anglo-Saxon dialects consists of the divisions of +them into the, 1, West-Saxon; 2, Mercian; and 3, Northumbrian, that it is +best to give a general view of the whole tract before the minuter details +of the different counties which compose them are noticed. The _data_ for +the Northumbrian division of the Anglo-Saxon dialects are as follows:-- + +1. _Wanley's Fragment of Caedmon._--The north-east of Yorkshire was the +birth-place of the Anglo-Saxon monk Caedmon. Nevertheless, the form in +which his poems in full have come down to us is that of a West-Saxon +composition. This indicates the probability of the original work having +first been re-cast, and afterwards lost. Be this as it may, the {546} +following short fragment has been printed by Wanley, from an ancient MS., +and by Hickes from Bede, Hist. Eccl., 4, 24, and it is considered, in the +first form, to approach or, perhaps, to represent the Northumbrian of the +original poem. + + 1. 2. + _Wanley._ _Hickes._ + + Nu seylun hergan N['u] we sceolan herigean + Herfaen-ricaes uard, Heofon-r['i]ces weard, + Metudes maecti, Metodes mihte, + End his modgethanc. And his m['o]dgethanc. + Uerc uuldur fadur, Weorc wuldor-faeder, + Sue he uundra gihuaes, Sva he wundra gewaes, + Eci drictin, Ec['e] driten, + Ord stelidae. Ord onstealde. + He aerist scopa, Ne ['ae]rest sc['o]p, + Elda barnum, Eordhan bearnum, + Heben til hrofe; Heofon t['o] r['o]fe; + Haleg scepen: H['a]lig scyppend: + Tha mittungeard, D['a] middangeard, + Moncynnaes uard, Moncynnes weard, + Eci drictin, Ece drihten, + Aefter tiadhae, Aefter te['o]de, + Firum foldu, Firum foldan, + Frea allmectig. Fre['a] almihtig. + +_Translation._ + + Now we should praise For earth's bairns, + The heaven-kingdom's preserver, Heaven to roof; + The might of the Creator, Holy shaper; + And his mood-thought. Then mid-earth, + The glory-father of works, Mankind's home, + As he, of wonders, each Eternal Lord, + Eternal Lord, After formed, + Originally established. For the homes of men, + He erst shaped, Lord Almighty. + +2. _The death-bed verses of Bede._ + + Fore the neidfaerae, Before the necessary journey, + Naenig uuiurthit No one is + Thoc-snotturra Wiser of thought + Than him tharf sie Than he hath need + To ymbhycganne, To consider, + {547} + Aer his hionongae, Before his departure, + Huaet, his gastae, What, for his spirit, + Godaes aeththa yflaes, Of good or evil, + Aefter deothdaege, After the death-day, + Doemid uuieorthae. Shall be doomed. + +From a MS. at St. Gallen; quoted by Mr. Kemble, _Archaeologia_, vol. +xxviii. + +3. _The Ruthwell Runes._--The inscription in Anglo-Saxon Runic letters, on +the Ruthwell Cross, is thus deciphered and translated by Mr. Kemble:-- + + . . . . . . . mik. . . . . . . me. + Riiknae kyningk The powerful King, + Hifunaes hlafard, The Lord of Heaven, + Haelda ic ne daerstae. I dared not hold. + Bismerede ungket men, They reviled us two, + B[^a] aetgaed[r]e, Both together, + Ik (n)idhbaedi bist(e)me(d) I stained with the pledge of crime. + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . + . . . . geredae . . . . prepared + Hinae gamaeldae Himself spake + Estig, dha he walde Benignantly when he would + An galgu gist[^i]ga Go up upon the cross, + M[^o]dig fore Courageously before + Men, . . . . . Men . . . . . + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . + Mid stralum giwundaed, Wounded with shafts, + Alegdun hiae hinae, They laid him down, + Limw[^e]rigne. Limb-weary. + Gistodun him . . . They stood by him. + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . + Krist waes on r[^o]di; Christ was on cross. + Hwedhrae ther f[^u]sae Lo! there with speed + Fearran cwomu From afar came + Aedhdhilae ti laenum. Nobles to him in misery. + Ic that al bih (e[^o]ld) I that all beheld + . . . . . sae (...) . . . . . . . . . . + Ic w(ae)s mi(d) ga(l)gu I was with the cross + Ae (. . . .) rod . ha . . . . . . . . . . . . + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . + +{548} + +"The dialect of these lines is that of Northumberland in the seventh, +eighth, and even ninth centuries. The first peculiarity is in the _ae_ for +_e_ in the oblique cases, and which I have observed in the cotemporary MS. +of Cudhberht's letter at St. Gallen. This, which is strictly organic, and +represents the uncorrupted Gothic genitive in _-as_, and dative in _-a_, as +well as the Old Saxon forms of the substantive, is evidence of great +antiquity. But that which is, perhaps, the most characteristic of the +Northumbrian dialect is the formation of the infinitive in _-a_ and _-ae_, +instead of _-an_ (_haeldae_, _gistiga_). The Durham Book has, I believe, +throughout but one single verb, which makes the infinitive in _-an_, and +that is the anomalous word _bean_=_to be_; even _wosa_ and _wiortha_ +following the common rule. The word _ungket_ is another incontrovertible +proof of extreme antiquity, having, to the best of my knowledge, never been +found but in this passage. It is the dual of the first personal pronoun +_Ic_, and corresponds to the very rare dual of the second personal pronoun +_incit_, which occurs twice in Caedmon."[78] + +4. _The Cotton Psalter._--This is a Latin Psalter in the Cotton collection, +accompanied by an Anglo-Saxon interlineation. Place uncertain. Time, ninth +century or earlier. The following points of difference between this and the +West-Saxon are indicated by Mr. Garnett, Phil. Soc. No. 27. + + COTTON PSALTER. WEST-SAXON. + + Boen, _prayer_ Ben. + Boec, _books_ B['e]c. + Coelan, _cool_ C['e]lan. + Doeman, _judge_ D['e]man. + Foedan, _feed_ F['e]dan. + Spoed, _fortune_ Sp['e]d. + Swoet, _sweet_ Sw['e]t. + Woenan, _think_, _ween_ W['e]nan. + +5. _The Durham Gospels--Quatuor Evangelia Latine, ex translatione B. +Hieronymi, cum gloss[^a] interlineat[^a] Saxonica._ Nero, D. 4. + +{549} + +_Matthew_, cap. 2. + + midhdhy arod gecenned were haelend in dhaer byrig + Cum ergo natus esset Jesus in Bethleem Judaeae + + in dagum Herodes cyninges heonu dha tungulcraeftga of eustdael + in diebus Herodis Regis, ecce magi ab oriente + + cweodhonde + cwomun to hierusalem hiu cwoedon huer is dhe acenned + venerunt Hierosolymam, dicentes, Ubi est qui natus + + tungul + is cynig Judeunu gesegon we fordhon sterru his in + est rex Judaeorum? vidimus enim stellam ejus in + + eustdael and we cwomon to wordhanne hine geherde wiototlice + oriente et venimus adorare eum. Audiens autem + + dha burgwaeras + herodes se cynig gedroefed waes and alle dha hierusolemisca midh + Herodes turbatus est et omnis Hierosolyma cum + + mesapreusti + him and gesomnede alle dha aldormenn biscopa + illo. Et congregatis (_sic_) omnes principes sacerdotum + + geascode + and dha udhuutta dhaes folces georne gefragnde fra him huer crist + et scribas populi, sciscitabatur ab iis ubi Christus + + acenned were. + nasceretur. + +6. _The Rituale Ecclesiae Dunhelmensis._--Edited for the Surtees Society by +Mr. Stevenson. Place: neighbourhood of Durham. Time: A.D. 970. Differences +between the Psalter and Ritual:-- + +_a._ The form for the first person is in the Psalter generally _-u_. In the +Ritual it is generally _-o_. In West Saxon, _-e_. + +PSALTER.--_Getreow-u_, I believe; _cleopi-u_, I call; _sell-u_, I give; +_ondred-u_, I fear; _ageld-u_, I pay; _getimbr-u_, I build. Forms in _-o_; +_sitt-o_, I sit; _drinc-o_, I drink. + +RITUAL.--_Feht-o_, I fight; _wuldrig-o_, I glory. The ending in _-u_ is +rarer. + +_b._ In the West Saxon the plural present of verbs ends in _-adh_: _we +lufi-adh_, _ge lufi-adh_, _hi lufi-adh_. The Psalter also exhibits this +West Saxon form. But the plurals of the Ritual {550} end in _-s_: as, +_bidd-as_=_we pray_; _giwoed-es_=_put on_; _wyrc-as_=_do_. + +_c._ The infinitives of verbs end in the West Saxon in _-an_, as +_cwed-an_=_to say_. So they do in the Psalter. But in the Ritual the _-n_ +is omitted, and the infinitive ends simply in _-a_: _cuoetha_=_to say_; +_inngeonga_=_to enter_. + +d. The oblique cases and plurals of substantives in West Saxon end in +_-an_: as _heortan_=_heart's_; _heortan_=_hearts_. So they do in the +Psalter. But in the Ritual the _-n_ is omitted, and the word ends simply in +_-a_ or _-e_; as _nome_=_of a name_ (West Saxon _nam-an_); +_hearta_=_hearts_. + +7. _The Rushworth Gospels._--Place, Harewood in Wharfdale, Yorkshire. Time, +according to Wanley, the end of the ninth century. + +Here observe-- + +1. That the Ruthwell inscription gives us a sample of the so-called +Northumbrian Anglo-Saxon, and that as it is spoken in Scotland, _i.e._, in +Galloway. For the bearings of this see Part II., c. 3. + +2. That the Rushworth Gospels take us as far south as the West Riding of +Yorkshire. + +3. That there are no specimens from any Cumberland, Westmoreland, or North +Lancashire localities, these being, most probably, exclusively Celtic. + +s. 693. The most general statements concerning this great section of the +Anglo-Saxon, is that-- + +1. It prefers the slenderer and more vocalic to the broader and more +diphthongal forms. + +2. The sounds of _k_ and _s_, to those of _ch_ and _sh_. + +3. The forms without the prefix _ge-_, to those with them. Nevertheless the +form _ge-cenned_ (=_natus_) occurs in the first line of the extract from +the Durham Gospels. + +s. 694. The Old and Middle English MSS. from this quarter are numerous; +falling into two classes: + +1. Transcriptions with accommodation from works composed southwards. Here +the characteristics of the dialect are not absolute. {551} + +2. Northern copies of northern compositions. Here the characteristics of +the dialect are at the maximum. Sir Tristram is one of the most important +works of this class; and in the wider sense of the term _Northumbrian_, it +is a matter of indifference on which side of the Border it was composed. +See s. 190. + +s. 695. Taking the counties in detail, we have-- + +_Northumberland._--Northern frontier, East Scotland; the direction of the +influence being from South to North, rather than from North to South, +_i. e._, Berwickshire and the Lothians being Northumbrian and English, +rather than Northumberland Scotch. + +West frontier Celtic--the Cumberland and Westmoreland Britons having been +encroached upon by the Northumbrians of Northumberland. + +Present dialect.--Believed to be nearly uniform over the counties of +Northumberland and Durham; but changing in character in North Yorkshire, +and in Cumberland and Westmoreland. + +The Anglo-Saxon immigration considered to have been Angle (so-called) +rather than Saxon. + +Danish admixture--Very great. Possibly, as far as the marks that it has +left on the language, greater than in any other part of _England_.[79]--See +s. 152. + +_Cumberland, Westmoreland, North Lancashire._--Anglo-Saxon elements +introduced from portions of Northumbria rather than directly from the +Continent. + +Celtic language persistent until a comparatively late though undetermined +period. + +Northern frontier, West-Scotland--the direction of the influence being from +Scotland to England, rather than _vice vers[^a]_; Carlisle being more of a +Scotch town than Berwick. + +Specimens of the dialects in the older stages, few and doubtful. + +Topographical nomenclature characterized by the preponderance of compounds +of _-thwaite_; as _Braithwaite_, &c. + +{552} + +_North_ Lancashire, Westmoreland, and Cumberland, "exhibit many Anglian[80] +peculiarities, which may have been occasioned in some degree by the +colonies in the south, planted in that district by William Rufus (Saxon +Chronicle, A.D. 1092.) A comparison of Anderson's ballads with Burns's +songs, will show how like Cumbrian is to Scottish, but how different. We +believe that Weber is right in referring the romance of Sir Amadas to this +district. The mixture of the Anglian forms _gwo_, _gwon_, _bwons_, +_boyd-word_ (in pure Northumbrian), _gae_, _gane_, _banes_, _bod-worde_, +with the northern terms, _tynt_, _kent_, _bathe_, _mare_, and many others +of the same class, could hardly have occurred in any other part of +England."[81] + +_Yorkshire, North and part of West Riding._--The Anglo-Saxon specimens of +this area have been noticed in s. 692. + +The extract from Chaucer is also from this district. + +The modern dialects best known are-- + +1. _The Craven._--This, in northern localities, "becomes slightly tinctured +with Northumbrian."--Quart. Rev. _ut supra_. + +2. _The Cleveland._--With not only Northumbrian, but even Scotch +characters. Quart. Rev. _ut supra_. + +Danish admixture--Considerable. + +All these dialects, if rightly classified, belong to the Northumbrian +division of the Angle branch of the Anglo-Saxon language; whilst, if the +_prim[^a] facie_ view of their affiliation or descent, be the true one, +they are the dialects of s. 692, in their modern forms. + +s. 696. The classification which gives this arrangement now draws a line of +distinction at the river Ribble, in Lancashire, which separates _South_ +from North Lancashire; whilst in Yorkshire, the East Riding, and that part +of the West which does not belong to the Wapentake of Claro, belong to the +class which is supposed to exclude the previous and contain the following +dialects:-- + +s. 697. _South Lancashire and Cheshire._--Sub-varieties of {553} the same +dialects, but not sub-varieties of the previous ones. + +The plural form in _-en_ is a marked character of this dialect--at least of +the Lancashire portion. + +Supposed original population--Angle rather than Saxon. + +Original political relations--Mercian rather than Northumbrian. + +These last two statements apply to all the forthcoming areas north of +Essex. The latter is a simple historical fact; the former supposes an +amount of difference between the Angle and the Saxon which has been assumed +rather than proved; or, at any rate, which has never been defined +accurately. + +The elements of uncertainty thus developed, will be noticed in ss. 704-708. +At present it is sufficient to say, that if the South Lancashire dialect +has been separated from the north, on the score of its having been +_Mercian_ rather than _Northumbrian_, the principle of classification has +been based upon _political_ rather than _philological_ grounds; and as such +is exceptionable. + +s. 698. _Shropshire, Staffordshire, and West Derbyshire._--Supposing the +South Lancashire and Cheshire to be the Mercian (which we must remember is +a _political_ term), the Shropshire, Staffordshire, and _West_ Derbyshire +are Mercian also; transitional, however, in character. + +Shropshire and Cheshire have a Celtic frontier. + +Here, also, both the _a priori_ probabilities and the known facts make the +Danish intermixture at its _minimum_. + +s. 699. _East Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire._--Here the language is +considered to change from the mode of speech of which the South Lancashire +is the type, to the mode of speech of which the Norfolk and Suffolk dialect +is the type. + +Danish elements may now be expected, Derbyshire being the most inland +Danish area. + +Original political relations--Mercian. + +Specimens of the dialects in their older stages, preeminently scanty. + +_Hallamshire._--This means the parts about Sheffield {554} extended so as +to include that portion of the West Riding of Yorkshire which stands over +from s. 696. Probably belonging to the same group with the _South_ +Lancashire. + +_East Riding of Yorkshire._--It is not safe to say more of this dialect +than that its affinities are with the dialects spoken to the _north_ rather +than with those spoken to the south of it, _i.e._, that of-- + +_Lincolnshire._--Frontier--On the Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire +frontier, passing into the form of speech of those counties. Pretty +definitely separated from that of Norfolk. Less so from that of North +Cambridgeshire. Scarcely at all from that of Huntingdonshire, and North +Northamptonshire. + +Danish admixture.--The number of towns and villages ending in the +characteristic Danish termination _-by_, at its _maximum_; particularly in +the neighbourhood of Spils_by_. + +Traditions Danish, _e. g._, that of Havelok the Dane, at Grimsby. + +Physiognomy, Danish. + +Language not Danish in proportion to the other signs of Scandinavian +intermixture. + +Specimens of the dialects in its older form--Havelok[82] the Dane (?), +Manning's Chronicle (supposing the MS. to have been transcribed in the +county where the author was born). + +Provincial peculiarities (_i.e._, deviations from the written language) +nearly at the _minimum_. + +_Huntingdonshire, North Northamptonshire, and Rutland._--_Anglo-Saxon +period._--The latter part of the Saxon Chronicle was written at Peterboro. +Probably, also, the poems of Helena and Andreas. Hence, this area is that +of the _old_ Mercian in its most typical form; whilst South Lancashire is +that of the _new_--a practical instance of the inconvenience of applying +_political_ terms to philological subjects. + +s. 700. _Norfolk, Suffolk, and the fen part of Cambridgeshire._--Here the +population is pre-eminently Angle. The political character East-Anglian +rather than Mercian. + +{555} + +Specimens of the dialects in the Anglo-Saxon stage.--The Natale St. +Edmundi, in Thorpe's Analecta Anglo-Saxonica. + +Early English--The Promtuarium Parvulorum. + +s. 701. _Leicestershire, Warwickshire, and South +Northamptonshire._--Mercian (so-called) rather than West-Saxon (so-called). + +Probably, approaching the written language of England more closely than is +the case with the dialects spoken to the south of them. + +Certainly, approaching the written language of England less closely than is +the case with the dialect of Huntingdonshire, North Northamptonshire, and +South Lincolnshire. + +s. 702. These remarks have the following import. They bear upon the +question of the origin of the _written_ language of England. + +Mr. Guest first diverted the attention of scholars from the consideration +of the West Saxon of the chief Anglo-Saxon writers as the mother-dialect of +the present English, to the Mercian; so turning their attention from the +south to the centre of England. + +The general principle that a _central_ locality has the _a priori_ +likelihood in its favour, subtracts nothing from the value of his +suggestion. + +Neither does the fact of the nearest approach to the written language being +found about the parts in question; since the doctrine to which the present +writer commits himself, viz., that in the parts between Huntingdon and +Stamford, the purest English is most generally spoken, is, neither +universally recognised, nor yet part of Mr. Guest's argument. + +Mr. Guest's arguments arose out of the evidence of the MSS. of the parts in +question. + +That the dialect most closely allied to the dialect (or dialects) out of +which the present literary language of England is developed, is to be found +either in Northamptonshire or the neighbouring counties is nearly certain. +Mr. Guest looks for it on the western side of that county (Leicestershire); +the present writer on the eastern (Huntingdonshire). + +s. 703. It is now convenient to pass from the dialects of {556} the +water-system of the Ouse, Nene, and Welland to those spoken along the lower +course of the Thames. + +These, to a certain extent, may be dealt with like those to the north of +the Humber. Just as the latter were, in the first instance, and in the more +general way, thrown into a single class (the Northumbrian), so may the +dialects in question form the provisional centre of another separate class. +For this we have no very convenient name. The dialects, however, which it +contains agree in the following points. + +1. These are considered to be derived from that variety of the Anglo-Saxon +which is represented by the chief remains of the Anglo-Saxon literature, +_i.e._, the so-called standard or classical language of Alfred, Aelfric, +the present text of Caedmon, &c. + +2. About half their _present eastern_ area consists of the _counties_ +ending in _-sex_; viz., Sus_sex_, Es_sex_, and Middle_sex_. + +3. Nearly the _whole_ of their _original_ area consisted in _kingdoms_ (or +sub-kingdoms) ending in _-sex_; viz., the districts just enumerated, and +the kingdom of Wes_sex_. + +Hence they are-- + +_a._--_Considered with reference to their literary history._--They are +dialects whereof the literary development began early, but ceased at the +time of the Norman Conquest, being superseded by that of the central +dialects (_Mercian_ so-called) of the island. The truth of this view +depends on the truth of Mr. Guest's doctrine noticed in page 555. If true, +it is by no means an isolated phaenomenon. In Holland the present Dutch is +the descendant of some dialect (or dialects) which was uncultivated in the +earlier periods of the language; whereas the Old Frisian, which was _then_ +the written language, is _now_ represented by a provincial dialect only. + +"In speaking of the Anglo-Saxon language, scholars universally intend that +particular form of speech in which all the principal monuments of our most +ancient literature are composed, and which, with very slight variations, is +found in Beowulf and Caedmon, in the Exeter and Vercelli Codices, in the +translation of the Gospels and Homilies, and in the works {557} of Aelfred +the Great. For all general purposes this nomenclature is sufficiently +exact; and in this point of view, the prevalent dialect, which contains the +greatest number of literary remains, may be fairly called the Anglo-Saxon +language, of which all varying forms were dialects. It is, however, obvious +that this is in fact an erroneous way of considering the subject; the +utmost that can be asserted is, that Aelfred wrote his own language, viz., +that which was current in Wessex; and that this, having partly through the +devastations of heathen enemies in other parts of the island, partly +through the preponderance of the West-Saxon power and extinction of the +other royal families, become the language of the one supreme court, soon +became that of literature and the pulpit also."--Kemble. Phil. Trans. No. +35. + +_b._--_Considered in respect to their political relations._--Subject to the +influence of the _Wessex_ portion of the so-called Heptarchy, rather than +to the _Mercian_, + +_c._--_Considered ethnologically_--_Saxon_ rather than _Angle_. The +exceptions that lie against this class will be noticed hereafter. + +s. 704. _Kent_--_Theoretically_, Kent, is Jute rather than Saxon, and Saxon +rather than Angle. + +Celtic elements, probably, at the _minimum_. + +Predominance of local terms compounded of the word _-hurst_; as, +Pens_hurst_, Staple_hurst_, &c. + +_Frisian hypothesis._--The following facts and statements (taken along with +those of ss. 15-20, and ss. 129-131), pre-eminently require criticism. + +1. Hengest the supposed father of the Kentish kingdom is a Frisian +hero--Kemble's _Saechsische Stamtaffel_. + +2. The dialect of the Durham Gospels and Ritual contain a probably Frisian +form. + +3. "The country called by the Anglo-Saxons Northumberland, and which may +loosely be said to have extended from the Humber to Edinburgh, and from the +North Sea to the hills of Cumberland, was peopled by tribes of Angles. +Such, at least, is the tradition reported by Beda, who adds that Kent was +first settled by Jutes. Who these Jutes were is {558} not clearly +ascertained, but from various circumstances it may be inferred that there +was at least a considerable admixture of Frisians amongst them. Hengest, +the supposed founder of the Kentish kingdom, is a Frisian hero, and Jutes, +'eotenas,' is a usual name for the Frisians in Be['o]wulf. Beda, it is +true, does not enumerate Frisians among the Teutonic races by which England +was colonized, but this omission is repaired by the far more valuable +evidence of Procopius, who, living at the time of some great invasion of +Britain by the Germans, expressly numbers Frisians among the invaders. Now +the Anglo-Saxon traditions themselves, however obscurely they may express +it, point to a close connection between Kent and Northumberland: the latter +country, according to these traditions, was colonized from Kent, and for a +long time received its rulers or dukes from that kingdom. Without attaching +to this legend more importance than it deserves, we may conclude that it +asserts an original communion between the tribes that settled in the two +countries; and consequently, if any Frisic influence is found to operate in +the one, it will be necessary to inquire whether a similar action can be +detected in the other. This will be of some moment hereafter, when we enter +upon a more detailed examination of the dialect. The most important +peculiarity in which the Durham Evangeles and Ritual differ from the +Psalter is the form of the infinitive mood in verbs. This in the Durham +books is, with exception of one verb, be['a]n, _esse_, invariably formed in +_-a_, not in _-an_, the usual form in all the other Anglo-Saxon dialects. +Now this is also a peculiarity of the Frisic, and of the Old Norse, and is +found in no other Germanic tongue; it is then an interesting inquiry +whether the one or the other of these tongues is the origin of this +peculiarity; whether, in short, it belongs to the old, the original Frisic +form which prevailed in the fifth, sixth and seventh centuries, or whether +it is owing to Norse influence, acting in the ninth and tenth, through the +establishment of Danish invaders and a Danish dynasty in the countries +north of the Humber."--Kemble. Phil. Trans. No. 35. + +The details necessary for either the verification or the overthrow of the +doctrine of a similarity of origin between {559} portions of the +Northumbrian[83] and portions of the Kentish population have yet to be +worked out. + +So have the _differentiae_ between the dialects of _Kent_, and the dialects +of Sus_sex_, Es_sex_, Middle_sex_, and Wes_sex_. + +_Probable Anglo-Saxon of Kent._--Codex Diplomaticus, No. 191. + +s. 705. _Sussex._--The characteristics are involved in those of Kent--thus, +if Kent be simply Saxon the two counties have the same ethnological +relation; whilst if Kent be Frisian or Jute(?) Sussex may be either like or +unlike. + +_Hampshire._--_Theoretically_, Saxon rather than Angle, and West Saxon +(Wessex) rather than south, east, or Middle-Saxon. + +Jute elements in either the Hants or Isle of Wight dialects, hitherto +undiscovered. Probably, non-existent. + +Present dialect certainly not the closest representative of the classical +Anglo-Saxon, _i. e._, the so-called _West_ Saxon. + +_Berkshire._--Present dialect, probably, the closest representative of the +classical Anglo-Saxon. + +_Cornwall._--Celtic elements at the _maximum_. + +_Devonshire and West Somerset._--Present dialect strongly marked by the use +of _z_ for _s_ (_Zomerzet_=_Somerset_). + +Celtic elements probably considerable. + +_Worcestershire._--The language of the Anglo-Saxon period is characterized +by the exclusive, or nearly exclusive, use of _s_ in the forms _usse_ and +_usses_ for _ure_ and _ures_. See Codex Diplomaticus, Nos. 95 and 97. + +The affiliation of the present dialect has yet to be investigated. + +_North Glostershire._--_Politically_, both North Gloster and Worcestershire +are Mercian rather than West-Saxon. + +Now the language of Layamon was North Gloster. + +And one at least of the MSS. is supposed to represent this language. + +Nevertheless its character is said to be West Saxon rather than Mercian. + +What does this prove? Not that the West Saxon dialect {560} extended into +Mercia, but that a political nomenclature is out of place in philology. + +_The Welsh frontier._--_Herefordshire, &c._--Celtic elements. General +character of the dialects, probably, that of the counties immediately to +the east of them. + +_Essex._--_Theoretically_, Saxon rather than Angle. No such distinction, +however, is indicated by the ascertained characteristic of the Essex +dialects as opposed to the East Anglian, Suffolk, and the Mercian. + +_Hertfordshire._--I am not aware of any thing that distinguishes the South +Hertfordshire form of speech from those of-- + +_Middlesex._--Here, as far as there are any characteristics at all, they +are those of _Es_sex. The use of _v_ for _w_, attributed (and partially +due) to Londoners, occurs--not because there is any such thing as a London +dialect, but because London is a town on the Essex side of Middlesex. + +_Surrey._--The name (_Sudh rige_=_southern kingdom_) indicates an original +political relation with the parts _north_ rather than _south_ of the +Thames. + +The evidence of the dialect is, probably, the other way. + +s. 706. _Supposed East-Anglian and Saxon frontier._--For the area just +noticed there are two lines of demarcation--one geographical, and one +ethnological. + +_a._ _Geographical._--The river Thames. + +_b._ _Ethnological._--The line which separates Middle_sex_ and Es_sex_ +(_so-called_ Saxon localities) from Herts and Suffolk (_so-called_ Angle +localities). + +Of these the first line involves an undeniable fact; the second a very +doubtful one. No evidence has been adduced in favour of disconnecting Saxon +Essex from Anglian Suffolk, nor yet for connecting it with Sus_sex_ and +Wes_sex_. The termination _-sex_ is an undoubted fact; the difference +between the Saxons and Angles which it is supposed to indicate is an +assumption. + +s. 707. The dialects of the remaining counties have, probably, the +transitional characters, indicated by their geographical position. + +_Dorset_--Hants and Somerset. {561} + +_Wilts._--Hants, Dorset, Somerset, Berks. + +_Buckingham, Beds, Northampton._--These connect the two most convenient +_provisional_ centres of the so-called West-Saxon of Alfred, &c., and +mother-dialect of the present written English, viz.: Wantage and Stamford +(or Huntingdon); and in doing this they connect dialects which, although +placed in separate classes (West-Saxon and Mercian), were, probably, more +alike than many subdivisions of the same group. + +To investigate the question as to the Mercian or West-Saxon origin of the +present written English without previously stating whether the comparison +be made between such extreme dialects as those of the New Forest, and the +neighbourhood of Manchester, or such transitional ones as those of Windsor +and Northampton is to reduce a real to a mere verbal discussion. + +_Warwickshire, Staffordshire._--From their central position, probably +transitional to both the north and south, and the east and west groups. + +Celtic elements increasing. + +Danish elements decreasing. Perhaps at the _minimum_. + +s. 708. The exceptions suggested in ss. 703, 704, lie not only against the +particular group called West-Saxon, but (as may have been anticipated) +against all classifications which assume either-- + +1. A coincidence between the philological divisions of the Anglo-Saxon +language, and the political division of the Anglo-Saxon territory. + +2. Any broad difference between the Angles and the Saxons. + +3. The existence of a Jute population. + + * * * * * + +s. 709. _English dialects not in continuity with the mother-tongue._--Of +these the most remarkable are those of-- + +1. _Little England beyond Wales._--In Pembrokeshire, and a part of +Glamorganshire, the language is English rather than Welsh. The following +extracts from Higden have effected the belief that this is the result of a +Flemish colony. "_Sed {562} et Flandrenses, tempore Regis Henrici Primi in +magna copia juxta Mailros ad orientalem Angliae plagam habitationem pro +tempore accipientes, septimam in insula gentem fecerunt: jubente tamen +eodem rege, ad occidentalem Walliae partem, apud Haverford, sunt translati. +Sicque Britannia ... his ... nationibus habitatur in praesenti ... +Flandrensibus in West Wallia_." + +A little below, however, we learn that these Flemings are distinguished by +their origin only, and not by their language:--"_Flandrenses vero qui in +Occidua Walliae incolunt, dimissa jam barbarie, Saxonice satis +loquuntur_."--Higden, edit. Gale, p. 210. + +On the other hand, Mr. Guest has thrown a reasonable doubt upon this +inference; suggesting the probability of its having been simply English. +The following vocabulary collected by the Rev. J. Collins,[84] in the +little peninsula of Gower, confirms this view. It contains no exclusively +Flemish elements. + + Angletouch, n. s. _worm_. + + Bumbagus, n. s. _bittern_. + Brandis, n. s. _iron stand for a pot or kettle_. + + Caffle, adj. _entangled_. + Cammet, adj. _crooked_. + Cloam, n. s. _earthenware_. + Charnel, n. s. _a place raised in the roof for hanging bacon_. + Clit, v. _to stick together_. + + Deal, n. s. _litter, of pigs_. + Dotted, adj. _giddy, of a sheep_. + Dome, adj. _damp_. + Dreshel, n. s. _a flail_. + + Eddish, n. s. _wheat-stubble_. + Evil, n. s. a _three-pronged fork for dung, &c._ + + Firmy, v. _to clean out, of a stable, &c._ + Fleet, adj. _exposed in situation_, _bleak_. + Flott, n. s. _aftergrass_. + Flamiring, s. _an eruption of the nature of erysipelas_. + Fraith, adj. _free-spoken_, _talkative_. + Frithing, adj. _a fence made of thorns wattled_. + Foust, v. act. _to tumble_. + Flathin, n. s. _a dish made of curds, eggs, and milk_. + + Gloy, n. s. _refuse straw after the "reed" has been taken out_. + Gloice, n. s., _a sharp pang of pain_. + + Heavgar, adj. _heavier_ (so also _near-ger_, _far-ger_). + Hamrach, n. s. _harness collar made of straw_. + Hay, n. s. _a small plot of ground attached to a dwelling_. + + Kittybags, n. s. _gaiters_. + + Lipe, n. s. _matted basket of peculiar shape_. + {563} + Letto, n. s. _a lout_, _a foolish fellow_. + + Main, adj. _strong_, _fine_ (_of growing crops_), + + Nesseltrip, n. s. _the small pig in a litter_. + Nommet, n. s. _a luncheon of bread, cheese, &c._--_not a regular meal_. + Noppet, Nipperty, adj. _lively_--_convalescent_. + + Ovice, n. s. _eaves of a building_. + + Plym, v. _to fill_, _to plump up_. + Plym, adj. _full_. + Planche, v. _to make a boarded floor_. + Peert, adj. _lively_, _brisk_. + Purty, v. n. _to turn sulky_. + + Quat, v. act. _to press down_, _flatten_. + Quapp, v. n. _to throb_. + + Rathe, adj. _early, of crops_. + Reremouse, n. s. _bat_. + Ryle, v. _to angle in the sea_. + Riff, n. s. _an instrument for sharpening scythes_. + + Seggy, v. act. _to tease_, _to provoke_. + Semmatt, n. s. _sieve made of skin for winnowing_. + Shoat, n. s. _small wheaten loaf_. + Showy, v. n. _to clear_ (_of weather_); (show, _with termination_ y, + _common_). + Soul, n. s. _cheese, butter, &c_. (_as eaten with bread_). + Snead, n. s. _handle of a scythe_. + Songalls, n. s. _gleanings_: "to gather _songall_" _is_ to glean. + Sull, _or_ Zull, n. s. _a wooden plough_. + Stiping, n. s. _a mode of fastening a sheep's foreleg to its head by a + band of straw, or withy_. + Susan, n. s. _a brown earthenware pitcher_. + Sump, n. s. _any bulk that is carried_. + Suant, part. _regular in order_. + Slade, n. s. _ground sloping towards the sea_. + + Tite, v. _to tumble over_. + Toit, n. s. _a small seat or stool made of straw_. + Toit, adj. _frisky_, _wanton_. + + Vair, n. s. _weasel_ or _stoat_. + + Want, n. s. _a mole_. + Wirg, n. s. _a willow_. + Wimble, v. _to winnow_. + Weest, adj. _lonely_, _desolate_. + Wash-dish, n. s. _the titmouse_. + +s. 710. _The baronies of Forth and Bargie in the County Wexford._--The +barony of Forth "lies south of the city of Wexford, and is bounded by the +sea to the south and east, and by the barony of Bargie to the west. It is +said to have been colonized by the Welshmen who accompanied Strongbow in +his invasion of Ireland; but by the term Welshmen, as here used, we must no +doubt understand the English settlers of Gower and Pembroke. Vallancey +published a specimen of their language. Some of the grammatical forms can +hardly {564} fail to interest the English scholar, and we may venture more +particularly to call his attention to the verbal ending _th_. In no other +of our spoken dialects do we find the _th_ still lingering as an inflection +of the _plural_ verb." + +ADDRESS IN THE BARONY OF FORTH LANGUAGE. + + _Presented in August 1836, to the Marquis of Normanby, then Earl of + Mulgrave, and Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; with a Translation of the + Address in English._ + + _To's Excellencie Consantine Harrie Phipps, Earle Mulgrave, "Lord + Lieutenant-General, and General Governor of Ireland;" Ye soumissive + spakeen o' ouz Dwellers o' Baronie Forthe, Weisforthe._ + + Mai't be plesaunt to th' Excellencie, + + Wee, Vassales o' "His Most Gracious Majesty" Wilyame ee 4th an az wee + verilie chote na coshe an loyale Dwellers na Baronie Forth, crave na + dicke luckie acte t'uck necher th' Excellencie, an na plaine garbe o' + oure yola talke, wi' vengem o' core t'gie oure zense o'ye grades wilke + be ee dighte wi' yer name, and whilke wee canna zie, albeit o' + "Governere" Statesman an alike. Yn ercha an ol o' whilke yt beeth wi' + gleezom o'core th' oure eene dwitheth apan ye vigere o'dicke zovereine, + Wilyame ee Vourthe unnere fose fatherlie zwae oure deis be ee spant, az + avare ye trad dicke lone ver name was ee kent var ee _Vriene o' + Levertie_, an _He fo brack ge neckers o' Zlaves_--Mang ourzels--var wee + dwitheth an Irelone az oure general haime--y'ast bie' ractzom homedelt + tous ye lass ee mate var ercha vassale, ne'er dwith ee na dicke wai + n'ar dicka. Wee dewithe ye ane fose deis bee gien var ee gudevare o' ee + lone ye zwae, t'avance {565} pace an levertie, an wi'out vlinch ee + garde o' general riochts an poplare vartue.--Ye pace--yea wee ma' zei + ye vaste pace whilke be ee stent o'er ye lone zince th' ast ee cam, + prooth, y'at we alane needed ye giftes o' general riochts, az be + displayte bie ee factes o' thie governmente. Ye state na dicke die o'ye + lone, na whilke be ne'er fash n'ar moil, albeit "Constitutional + Agitation" ye wake o'hopes ee blighte, stampe na per zwae ee be rare an + lightzom. Yer name var zetch avanct avare y'e, e'en a dicke var hie, + arent whilke ye brine o' zea, an ee crags o'noghanes cazed nae balk. Na + oure glades ana whilke we dellte wi' mattoc, an zing t'oure caules wi + plou, we hert ee zough o'ye colure o' pace na name o' "_Mulgrave_." Wi + "Irishmen" oure general hopes be ee bond, az "Irishmen," an az dwellers + na coshe an loyale o' Baronie Forthe, w'oul dei an ercha dei, oure + maunes an aure gurles, prie var lang an happie zins, home o'leurnagh an + ee vilt wi benizons, an yersel an oure zoverine 'till ee zin o'oure + deis be var ay be ee go t'glade. + + * * * * * + + _To His Excellency Constantine Henry Phipps, Earl Mulgrave, Lord + Lieutenant-General and General Governor of Ireland: The humble Address + of the Inhabitants of Barony Forth, Wexford._ + + May it please your Excellency, + + We, the subjects of His Most Gracious Majesty William IV., and as we + truly believe both faithful and loyal inhabitants of the Barony Forth, + beg leave, at this favourable opportunity to approach Your Excellency, + and in the simple garb of our old dialect to pour forth from the + strength (or fulness) of our hearts, our strength (or admiration) of + the qualities which characterize your name, and for which we have no + words but of "Governor," "Statesman," &c. Sir, each and every + condition, it is with joy of heart that our eyes rest upon the + representative of that Sovereign, William IV., under whose paternal + rule our days are spent; for before your foot pressed the soil, your + name was known to us as the _Friend of Liberty_, and _He who broke the + fetters of the Slave_. Unto ourselves--for we look on Ireland to be our + common country--you have with impartiality (of hand) ministered the + laws made for every subject, without regard to this party or that. We + behold you, one whose days devoted to the welfare of the land you + govern, to promote peace and liberty--the uncompromising guardian of + common rights and public virtue. The peace, yes we may say the profound + peace, which overspreads the land since your arrival, proves that we + alone stood in need of the enjoyment of common privileges, as is + demonstrated by the results of your government. The condition, this + day, of the country, in which is neither tumult nor confusion, but that + constitutional agitation, the consequence of disappointed hopes, + confirm your rule to be rare and enlightened. Your fame for such came + before you, even into this retired spot, to which neither the waters of + the sea yonder, nor the mountains above, caused any impediment. In our + valleys, where we were digging with the spade, or as we whistled to our + horses in the plough, we heard in the word "Mulgrave," the sound of the + wings of the dove of peace. With Irishmen our common hopes are + inseparably wound up; as Irishmen, and as inhabitants, faithful and + loyal, of the Barony Forth, we will daily, and every day, our wives and + our children, implore long and happy days, free from melancholy and + full of blessings, for yourself and good Sovereign, until the sun of + our lives be for ever gone down the dark valley of death.[85] + +s. 711. _Americanisms._--These, which may be studied in the excellent +dictionary of J. R. Bartlett, are chiefly referable to five causes-- + +{566} + +1. Influence of the aboriginal Indian languages. + +2. Influence of the languages introduced from Europe anterior to the +predominance of English; viz.: French in Louisiana, Spanish in Florida, +Swedish in Pennsylvania and Delaware, and Dutch in New York. + +3. Influence, &c., subsequent to the predominance of the English; viz.: +German in Pennsylvania, and Gaelic and Welsh generally. + +4. Influence of the original difference of dialect between the different +portions of the English population. + +5. Influence of the preponderance of the Anglo-Saxon over the Anglo-Norman +element in the American population in general. + +s. 712. _Extract._--In a sound and sagacious paper upon the Probable Future +Position of the English Language,[86] Mr. Watts, after comparing the +previous predominance of the French language beyond the pale of France, +with the present spread of the German beyond Germany, and after deciding in +favour of the latter tongue, remarks that there is "The existence of +another language whose claims are still more commanding. That language is +our own. Two centuries ago the proud position that it now occupies was +beyond the reach of anticipation. We all smile at the well-known boast of +Waller in his lines on the death of Cromwell, but it was the loftiest that +at the time the poet found it in his power to make:-- + + 'Under the tropie is our language spoke, + And part of Flanders hath received our yoke.' + +"'I care not,' said Milton, 'to be once named abroad, though perhaps I +could attain to that, being content with these islands as my world.' A +French Jesuit, Garnier, in 1678, laying down rules for the arrangement of a +library, thought it superfluous to say anything of English books, because, +as he observed, 'libri Anglic[^a] scripti lingu[^a] vix mare transmittunt.' +Swift, in the earlier part of the eighteenth century, in his 'Proposal for +correcting, improving, and {567} ascertaining the English Tongue,' +observed, 'the fame of our writers is usually confined to these two +islands." Not quite a hundred years ago Dr. Johnson seems to have +entertained far from a lofty idea of the legitimate aspirations of an +English author. He quotes in a number of the 'Rambler' (No. 118, May 4th, +1751), from the address of Africanus as given by Cicero, in his Dream of +Scipio:--'The territory which you inhabit is no more than a scanty island +inclosed by a small body of water, to which you give the name of the great +sea and the Atlantic Ocean. And even in this known and frequented continent +what hope can you entertain that your renown will pass the stream of Ganges +or the cliffs of Caucasus, or by whom will your name be uttered in the +extremities of the north or south towards the rising or the setting sun? So +narrow is the space to which your fame can be propagated, and even there +how long will it remain?' 'I am not inclined,' remarks Johnson, 'to believe +that they who among us pass their lives in the cultivation of knowledge or +acquisition of power, have very anxiously inquired what opinions prevail on +the further banks of the Ganges.... The hopes and fears of modern minds are +content to range in a narrower compass; a single nation, and a few years +have generally sufficient amplitude to fill our imagination.' What a +singular comment on this passage is supplied by the fact that the dominions +of England now stretch from the Ganges to the Indus, that the whole space +of India is dotted with the regimental libraries of its European +conquerors, and that Rasselas has been translated into Bengalee! A few +years later the great historian of England had a much clearer perception of +what was then in the womb of Fate. When Gibbon, as has been already +mentioned, submitted to Hume, a specimen of his intended History of +Switzerland, composed in French, he received a remarkable letter in reply: +'Why,' said Hume, 'do you compose in French and carry faggots into the +wood, as Horace says with regard to Romans who wrote in Greek? I grant that +you have a like motive to those Romans, and adopt a language much more +generally diffused than your native tongue, but have you not remarked the +fate {568} of those two ancient languages in following ages? The Latin, +though then less celebrated and confined to more narrow limits, has in some +measure outlived the Greek, and is now more generally understood by men of +letters. Let the French therefore triumph in the present diffusion of their +tongue. Our solid and increasing establishments in America, where we need +less dread the inundation of barbarians, promise a superior stability and +duration to the English language.' + +"Every year that has since elapsed has added a superior degree of +probability to the anticipations of Hume. At present the prospects of the +English language are the most splendid that the world has ever seen. It is +spreading in each of the quarters of the globe by fashion, by emigration, +and by conquest. The increase of population alone in the two great states +of Europe and America in which it is spoken, adds to the number of its +speakers in every year that passes, a greater amount than the whole number +of those who speak some of the literary languages of Europe, either +Swedish, or Danish, or Dutch. It is calculated that, before the lapse of +the present century, a time that so many now alive will live to witness, it +will be the native and vernacular language of about one hundred and fifty +millions of human beings. + +"What will be the state of Christendom at the time that this vast +preponderance of one language will be brought to bear on all its +relations,--at the time when a leading nation in Europe and a gigantic +nation in America make use of the same idiom,--when in Africa and +Australasia the same language is in use by rising and influential +communities, and the world is circled by the accents of Shakspeare and +Milton? At that time such of the other languages of Europe as do not extend +their empire beyond this quarter of the globe will be reduced to the same +degree of insignificance in comparison with English, as the subordinate +languages of modern Europe to those of the state they belong to,--the Welsh +to the English, the Basque to the Spanish, the Finnish to the Russian. This +predominance, we may flatter ourselves, will be a more signal blessing to +literature than that of any other language could possibly be. The English +is essentially a {569} medium language;--in the Teutonic family it stands +midway between the Germanic and Scandinavian branches--it unites as no +other language unites, the Romanic and the Teutonic stocks. This fits it +admirably in many cases for translation. A German writer, Prince Pueckler +Muskau, has given it as his opinion that English is even better adapted +than German to be the general interpreter of the literature of Europe. +Another German writer, Jenisch, in his elaborate 'Comparison of Fourteen +Ancient and Modern Languages of Europe,' which obtained a prize from the +Berlin Academy in 1796, assigns the general palm of excellence to the +English. In literary treasures what other language can claim the +superiority? If Rivarol more than sixty years back thought the collective +wealth of its literature able to dispute the pre-eminence with the French, +the victory has certainly not departed from us in the time that has since +elapsed,--the time of Wordsworth and Southey, of Rogers and Campbell, of +Scott, of Moore, and of Byron. + +"The prospect is so glorious that it seems an ungrateful task to interrupt +its enjoyment by a shade of doubt: but as the English language has attained +to this eminent station from small beginnings, may it not be advisable to +consider whether obstacles are not in existence, which, equally small in +their beginnings, have a probability of growing larger? The first +consideration that presents itself is that English is not the only language +firmly planted on the soil of America, the only one to which a glorious +future is, in the probable course of things, assured. + +"A sufficient importance has not always been attached to the fact, that in +South America, and in a portion of the northern continent, the languages of +the Peninsula are spoken by large and increasing populations. The Spanish +language is undoubtedly of easier acquisition for the purposes of +conversation than our own, from the harmony and clearness of its +pronunciation; and it has the recommendation to the inhabitants of Southern +Europe of greater affinity to their own languages and the Latin. Perhaps +the extraordinary neglect which has been the portion of this language for +the last {570} century and a half may soon give place to a juster measure +of cultivation, and indeed the recent labours of Prescott and Ticknor seem +to show that the dawn of that period has already broken. That the men of +the North should acquire an easy and harmonious southern language seems in +itself much more probable than that the men of the south should study a +northern language, not only rugged in its pronunciation, but capricious in +its orthography. The dominion of Spanish in America is, however, +interrupted and narrowed by that of Portuguese, and to a singular degree by +that of the native languages, some of which are possibly destined to be +used for literary purposes in ages to come. + +"At the time when Hume wrote his letter to Gibbon, the conquest of Canada +had very recently been effected. The rivalry of the French and English in +North America had been terminated by the most signal triumph of the English +arms. Had measures been taken at that time to discourage the use of French +and to introduce that of English, there can be little doubt that English +would now be as much the language of Quebec and Montreal as it is of New +York and the Delaware. Those measures were not taken. At this moment, when +we are approaching a century from the battle of the Heights of Abraham, +there is still a distinction of races in Canada, nourished by a distinction +of language, and both appear likely to continue. + +"Within the United States themselves, a very large body of the inhabitants +have remained for generation after generation ignorant of the English +language. The number is uncertain. According to Stricker, in his +dissertation 'Die Verbreitung des deutschen Volkes ueber die Erde,' +published in 1845, the population of German origin in the United States in +1844 was 4,886,632, out of a total of 18,980,650. This statement, though +made in the most positive terms, is founded on an estimate only, and has +been shown to be much exaggerated. Wappaus (in his 'Deutsche Auswanderung +und Colonisation'), after a careful examination, arrives at the conclusion +that the total cannot amount to a million and a half. Many of these are of +course acquainted with both {571} languages--in several cases where +amalgamation has taken place, the German language has died out and been +replaced by the English,--but the number of communities where it is still +prevalent is much larger than is generally supposed. In Pennsylvania, Ohio, +and Missouri, to say nothing of other states, there are masses of +population of German origin or descent, who are only acquainted with +German. This tendency has of late years increased instead of declining. It +has been a favourite project with recent German emigrants to form in +America a state, in which the language should be German, and from the vast +numbers in which they have crossed the Atlantic, there is nothing +improbable in the supposition, that, by obtaining a majority in some one +state, this object will be attained. In 1835 the legislature of +Pennsylvania placed the German language in its legal rights on the same +footing with the English. + +"It may be asked if any damage will be done by this? The damage, it may be +answered, will be twofold. The parties who are thus formed into an isolated +community, with a language distinct from that of those around them, will be +placed under the same disadvantages as the Welsh of our own day, who find +themselves always as it were some inches shorter than their neighbours, and +have to make an exertion to be on their level. Those of them who are only +masters of one language are in a sort of prison; those who are masters of +two, might, if English had been their original speech, have had their +choice of the remaining languages of the world to exert the same degree of +labour on, with a better prospect of advantage. In the case of Welsh, the +language has many ties: even those who see most clearly the necessity of +forsaking it, must lament the harsh necessity of abandoning to oblivion the +ancient tongue of an ancient nation. But these associations and feelings +could not be pleaded in favour of transferring the Welsh to Otaheite; and +when these feelings are withdrawn, what valid reason will remain for the +perpetuation of Welsh, or even, it may be said, of German? + +"The injury done to the community itself is perhaps the greatest; but there +is a damage done to the world in general. It will be a splendid and a novel +experiment in modern society, if a single language becomes so predominant +over all others as {572} to reduce them in comparison to the proportion of +provincial dialects. To have this experiment fairly tried, is a great +object. Every atom that is subtracted from the amount of the majority has +its influence--it goes into the opposite scale. If the Germans succeed in +establishing their language in the United States, other nations may follow. +The Hungarian emigrants, who are now removing thither from the vengeance of +Austria, may perpetuate their native Magyar, and America may in time +present a surface as checkered as Europe, or in some parts, as Hungary +itself, where the traveller often in passing from one village to another, +finds himself in the domain of a different language. That this consummation +may be averted must be the wish not only of every Englishman and of every +Anglo-American, but of every sincere friend of the advancement of +literature and civilization. Perhaps a few more years of inattention to the +subject will allow the evil to make such progress that exertion to oppose +it may come too late." + + * * * * * + +s. 713. Of the Gypsy language I need only say, that it is not only +Indo-Germanic, but that it is Hindoo. Few words from it have mixed +themselves with our standard (or even our provincial) dialects. + +Thieves' language, or that dialect for which there is no name, but one from +its own vocabulary, _viz._ Slang, is of greater value in philology than in +commerce. It serves to show that in speech nothing is arbitrary. Its +compound phrases are either periphrastic or metaphorical; its simple +monosyllables are generally those of the current language in an older form. +The thieves of London are conservators of Anglo-Saxonisms. In this dialect +I know of no specimens earlier than the reign of Queen Elizabeth. In the +dramatic literature of that age they are rife and common. The Roaring Girl, +the Jolly Beggars, amongst the plays, and Deckar's Bellman amongst the +tracts, preserve us a copious vocabulary, similar to what we have now, and +similar to what it was in Gay's time. Of this the greater part is Saxon. +Here and there appears a word of Latin origin, _e.g._, _pannum_, bread; +_cassons_, cheese. Of the Gypsy language I have discovered no trace. {573} + +s. 714. The Talkee-Talkee is a Lingua Franca based on the English, and +spoken by the Negroes of Surinam. + +It is Dutch rather than English; it shows, however, the latter language as +an element of admixture. + +SPECIMEN.[87] + + 1. Drie deh na bakka dem holi wan bruiloft na Cana na Galilea; on mamma + va Jesus ben de dapeh. + + 2. Ma dem ben kali Jesus nanga hem discipel toe, va kom na da bruiloft. + + 3. En teh wieni kaba, mamma va Jesus takki na hem; dem no habi wieni + morro. + + 4. Jesus takki na hem: mi mamma, hoeworko mi habi nanga joe? Tem va mi + no ben kom jette. + + 5. Hem mamma takki na dem foetoeboi; oene doe sanni a takki gi oene. + + 6. Ma dem ben poetti dapeh siksi biggi watra-djoggo, na da fasi va Djoe + vo krieni dem: inniwan djoggo holi toe effi drie kannetjes. + + 7. Jesus takki na dem [foetoeboi]: Oene foeloe dem watra-djoggo nanga + watra. Ed dem foeloe dem teh na moeffe. + + 8. En dan a takki na dem: Oene poeloe pikinso, tjarri go na + grang-foetoeboi. En dem doe so. + + 9. Ma teh grangfoetoeboi tesi da watra, dissi ben tron wieni, kaba a no + sabi, na hoepeh da wieni komotto (ma dem foetoeboi dissi ben teki da + watra ben sabi): a kali da bruidigom. + + 10. A takki na hem: Inniwan somma njoesoe va gi fossi da morro switti + wieni, en teh dem dringi noeffe kaba, na bakka da mendre swittiwan; ma + joe ben kiebri da morro boennewan. + + 11. Datti da fossi marki dissi Jesus ben doe; en datti ben passa na + Cana na Galilea va dem somma si hem glori. En dem discipel va hem + briebi na hem. + + + + 1. Three day after back, them hold one marriage in Cana in Galilee, and + mamma of Jesus been there. + + 2. But them been call Jesus with him disciple, for come to that + marriage. + + 3. And when wine end, mamma of Jesus talk to him, them no have wine + more. + + 4. Jesus talk to him, me mamma how work me have with you? Time of me no + been come yet. + + 5. Him mamma talk to them footboy, ye do things he talk to ye. + + 6. But them been put there six big water-jug, after the fashion of Jew + for clean them; every one jug hold two or three firkins. + + {574} 7. Jesus talk to them (footboy): ye fill them water jug with + water. And them fill them till to mouth. + + 8. And then he talk to them, ye pour little, carry go to grandfootboy. + And them do so. + + 9. But when grandfootboy taste that water, this been turn wine, could + he no know from where that wine come-out-of (but them footboy this been + take that water well know): he call the bridegroom. + + 10. He talk to him, every one man use of give first the more sweet + wine; and when them drink enough end, after back the less sweety wine: + but you been cover that more good wine. + + 11. That the first miracle that Jesus been do, and that been pass in + Cana in Galilee, for them men see him glory. And them disciple of him + believe in him. + +s. 715. That the Anglo-Norman of England was, in the reign of Edward III., +not the French of Paris (and most probably not the Franco-Norman of +Normandy), we learn from the well-known quotation from Chaucer:-- + + And Frenche she spake ful feteously, + After the scole of Stratforde at Bowe, + For Frenche of Parys was to her unknowe. + + _Prologue to the Canterbury Tales._ + +s. 716. The concluding extract from the Testamenta Eboracensia, published +by the Surtees' Society, is from the will of a gentleman in Yorkshire. To +me it seems to impugn the assertion of Higden, that the Norman was spoken +throughout England without a variety of pronunciation: "Mirandum videtur +quomodo nativa propria Anglorum lingua, in unica insula coartata, +pronunciatione ipsa fit tam diversa, cum tamen Normannica lingua, quae +adventicia est, univoca maneat penes cunctos."--_Ed. Gale_, p. 210. + +_Testamenta Eboracensia_, CLIX. + + En le noune de Dieu, et de notre Dame Sante Marie, et en noun de teuz + le sauntez de Paradyse, Amen. Moi Brian de Stapylton devise m'alme a + Dieu et a notre Dame Saunte Marie, et a touz lez Sauntz de Paradyse, et + mon chautiff corps d'estre enterre en le Priourie de le Parke decoste + ma compaigne, que Dieu l'assoille, et sur mon corps seit un drape de + blew saye; et ma volunte ett au l'aide de Dieu d'avoire un herce ov + synke tapirs, chescun tapir de synk livers, et tresze hommes vestuz en + bluw ov tresze torchez, {575} de queux tresze torchez, si ne saiount + degastez, jeo voile que quatre demore a le dit Priorie. + + Item jeo devyse que j'ay un homme armes en mes armes et ma hewme ene sa + teste, et quy soit bien monte et un homme de bon entaille de qil + condicon que y sort. + + Item jeo devyse que touz ceaux, qui a moy appendent meignialx en ma + maison, soient vestuz en bluw a mes costagez. Et a touz les poores, + qils veignent le jour de mon enterment jeo devise et voile que chescun + ait un denier en ovre de charrte, et en aide de ma chitiffe alme, et + jeo voile que les sires mes compaignons mez aliez et mez voiseignez, + qui volliont venir de lour bone gre prier pour moy et pour faire honour + a mon chettife corps, qi peue ne vault, jeo oille et chargez mez + executour que y soient mesme cel jour bien a eise, et q'il eient a + boiere asseth, et a cest ma volunt['e] parfournir jeo devise ci marcae + ove l'estore de maison taunke juiste seit. + +s. 717. _Relations of dialects_ (_so-called_) _to languages_ +(_so-called_).--"It is necessary clearly to conceive the nature and +character of what we call dialects. The Doric, Aeolic, and Ionic for +example, in the language of grammarians, are dialects of the Greek: to what +does this assertion amount? To this only, that among a people called the +Greeks, some being Dorians spoke a language called Doric, some being +Aeolians spoke another language called Aeolic, while a third class, +Ionians, spoke a third language called, from them, Ionic. But though all +these are termed dialects of the Greek, it does not follow that there was +ever a Greek language of which these were variations, and which had any +being apart from these. Dialects then are essentially languages: and the +name dialect itself is but a convenient grammarian's phrase, invented as +part of the machinery by which to carry on reasonings respecting languages. +We learn the language which has the best and largest literature extant; and +having done so, we treat all very nearly resembling languages as +_variations_ from what we have learnt. And that dialects are in truth +several languages, will readily appear to any one who perceives the +progressive development of the principle of separation in cognate tongues. +The language of the Bavarian highlander or High Dutch, the language of the +Hanoverian lowlander or Low Dutch, are German dialects: elevate, as it is +called, regulate, and purify the one, and it assumes the {576} name and +character of a language--it is German. Transplant the other to England, let +nine centuries pass over it, and it becomes a language too, and a language +of more importance than any which was ever yet spoken in the world, it has +become English. Yet none but practised philologists can acknowledge the +fact that the German and English languages are dialects of one Teutonic +tongue." + +s. 718. _Relation of dialects to the older stages of the +mother-tongue._--This has been noticed in s. 691. The following extract +from Mr. Kemble's paper just quoted, illustrates what he calls the +_spontaneity_ of dialects:-- + + "Those who imagine language invented by a man or men, originally + confined and limited in its powers, and gradually enlarged and enriched + by continuous practice and the reflection of wise and learned + individuals--unless, indeed, they look upon it as potentially only--in + _posse_ though not in _esse_--as the tree may be said to exist in the + seed, though requiring time and culture to flourish in all its + majesty--appear to neglect the facts which history proves. There is + nothing more certain than this, that the earlier we can trace back any + one language, the more full, complete, and consistent are its forms; + that the later we find it existing, the more compressed, colloquial, + and business-like it has become. Like the trees of our forests, it + grows at first wild, luxuriant, rich in foliage, full of light and + shadow, and flings abroad in its vast branches the fruits of a vigorous + youthful nature: transplanted into the garden of civilization and + trained for purposes of commerce, it becomes regulated, trimmed and + pruned; nature indeed still gives it life, but art prescribes the + direction and extent of its vegetation. Compare the Sanscrit with the + Gothic, the Gothic with the Anglo-Saxon, and again the Anglo-Saxon with + the English: or what is even better, take two periods of the + Anglo-Saxon itself, the eighth and tenth centuries for example. Always + we perceive a compression, a gradual loss of fine distinctions, a + perishing of forms, terminations and conjugations, in the younger state + of the language. The truth is, that in language up to a certain period, + there is a real indwelling vitality, a principle acting {577} + unconsciously but pervasively in every part: men wield their forms of + speech as they do their limbs, spontaneously, knowing nothing of their + construction, or the means by which these instruments possess their + power. There are flexors and extensors long before the anatomist + discovers and names them, and we use our arms without inquiring by what + wonderful mechanism they are made obedient to our will. So is it with + language long before the grammarian undertakes its investigation. It + may even be said, that the commencement of the age of + self-consciousness is identical with the close of that of vitality in + language; for it is a great error to speak of languages as dead, only + when they have ceased to be spoken. They are dead when they have ceased + to possess the power of adaptation to the wants of the people, and no + longer contain in themselves the means of their own extension. The + Anglo-Saxon, in the spirit and analogy of his whole language, could + have used words which had never been heard before, and been at once + understood: if we would introduce a new name for a new thing, we must + take refuge in the courtesy of our neighbours, and borrow from the + French, or Greek, or Latin, terms which never cease to betray their + foreign origin, by never putting off the forms of the tongue from which + they were taken, or assuming those of the tongue into which they are + adopted. The English language is a dead one. + + "In general it may be said that dialects possess this vitality in a + remarkable degree, and that their very existence is the strongest proof + of its continuance. This is peculiarly the case when we use the word to + denote the popular or provincial forms of speech in a country where, by + common consent of the learned and educated classes, one particular form + of speech has been elevated to the dignity of the national language. It + is then only the strength of the principles which first determined the + peculiarities of the dialect that continues to support them, and + preserves them from being gradually rounded down, as stones are by + friction, and confounded in the course of a wide-spreading + centralization. Increased opportunity of intercommunion with other + provincials or the metropolis (dependent upon increased facilities of + locomotion, {578} the improvement of roads and the spread of mechanical + inventions) sweeps away much of these original distinctions, but it + never destroys them all. This is a necessary consequence of the fact + that they are in some degree connected with the physical features of + the country itself, and all those causes which influence the + atmosphere. A sort of pseudo-vitality even till late periods bears + witness to the indwelling power, and the consciousness of oppression + from without: _false_ analogies are the form this life assumes. How + often have we not heard it asserted that particular districts were + remarkable for the Saxonism of their speech, because they had retained + the archaisms, _kine_, _shoon_, _housen_! Well and good! Archaisms they + are, but they are false forms nevertheless, based upon an analogy just + as erroneous as that which led men in the last century to say _crowed_, + _hanged_ for _crew_, _hung_. The Anglo-Saxon language never knew any + such forms, and one wonders not to find by their side equally + gratuitous Saxonisms, _mousen_, _lousen_."--Phil. Soc. No. 35. + +The doctrine that languages become _dead_ when they lose a certain power of +evolving new forms out of previously existing ones, is incompatible with +views to which the present writer has committed himself in the preface. If +the views there exhibited be true the test of the _vitality_ of a language, +if such metaphors _must_ be used, is the same as the test of vitality in +material organisms, _i.e._, the power of fulfilling certain functions. +Whether this is done by the evolution of new forms out of existing +materials, or by the amalgamation (the particular power of the English +language) of foreign terms is a mere difference of process. + +s. 719. _Effect of common physical conditions._--I again quote the same +paper of Mr. Kemble's:-- + + "Professor Willis of Cambridge, in the course of some most ingenious + experiments upon the organization and conditions of the human larynx, + came upon the law which regulated the pronunciation of the vowels. He + found this to be partly in proportion to the size of the opening in the + pipe, partly to the force with which the air was propelled through it, + and by the adaptation of a tremulous artificial larynx to the pipe of + an {579} organ, he produced the several vowels at will. Now bearing in + mind the difference between the living organ and the dead one, the + susceptibility of the former to dilatation and compression, from the + effects, not only of the human will, but also of cold, of denser or + thinner currents of air, and above all the influence which the general + state of the body must have upon every part of it, we are furnished at + once with the necessary hypothesis; viz. that climate, and the local + positions on which climate much depends, are the main agency in + producing the original variations of dialect. Once produced, tradition + perpetuates them, with subsequent modifications proportionate to the + change in the original conditions, the migration to localities of a + different character, the congregation into towns, the cutting down of + forests, the cultivation of the soil, by which the prevalent degrees of + cold and the very direction of the currents of air are in no small + degree altered. It is clear that the same influences will apply to all + such consonants as can in any way be affected by the greater or less + tension of the organs, consequently above all to the gutturals; next to + the palatals, which may be defined by the position of the tongue; least + of all to the labials, and generally to the liquids also, though these + may be more or less strongly pronounced by different peoples. This hint + must suffice here, as the pursuit of it is rather a physiological than + a philological problem, and it is my business rather to show + historically what facts bear upon my present inquiry, than to + investigate the philosophical reasons for their existence. Still, for + the very honour of human nature, one of whose greatest and most + universal privileges is the recognition of and voluntary subjection to + the laws of beauty and harmony, it is necessary to state that no + developed language exists which does not acknowledge some internal laws + of euphony, from which many of its peculiarities arise, and which by + these assimilates its whole practice and assumes an artistical + consistency. On this faculty, which is rather to be considered as a + moral quality of the people than a necessity of their language, depends + the facility of employing the language for certain purposes of art, and + {580} the form which poetry and rhythm shall assume in the period of + their cultivation. + + "In reviewing the principal languages of the ancient and modern world, + where the migrations of those that spoke them can be traced with + certainty, we are struck with the fact that the dwellers in chains of + mountains, or on the elevated plains of hilly districts, strongly + affect broad vowels and guttural consonants. Compare the German of the + Tyrol, Switzerland, or Bavaria, with that of the lowlands of Germany, + Westphalia, Hanover, and Mecklenburg: compare the Doric with the Attic, + or still more the soft Ionic Greek: follow the Italian of our own day + into the mountains of the Abruzzi: pursue the English into the hills of + Northumberland; mark the characteristics of the Celtic in the highlands + of Wales and Scotland, of the Vascongado, in the hilly ranges of Spain. + Everywhere we find the same type; everywhere the same love for broad + sounds and guttural forms; everywhere these appear as the peculiarity + of mountaineers. The difference of latitude between Holstein and + Inspruck is not great; that between Newcastle and Coventry is less; + Sparta is more southerly than Athens; Crete more so than either; but + this does not explain our problem; its solution is found in the + comparative number of feet above the level of the sea, in the hills and + the valleys which they enclose." + +If true, the bearings of this is important; since, if common physical +conditions effect a common physiognomy of language, we may have a certain +amount of resemblance without a corresponding amount of ethnological +affinity. + + * * * * * + + +{581} + +PRAXIS. + +The following extracts are given in the form of simple texts. They are +meant, more especially, to be explained by masters to their classes; and as +such were used by myself during the time that I was Professor of the +English language and literature at University College. They are almost all +taken from editions wherein either a translation or a full commentary can +be found by reference. To have enlarged the present Appendix into a full +Praxis, would have been to overstep the prescribed limits of the present +work. + +I. + +MOESO-GOTHIC. + +_Mark, Chap. 1._ + + 1. 2. Anastodeins aivaggeljons iesuis xristaus sunaus guths. sve + gamelith ist in esai in praufetau. sai. ik insandja aggilu meinana + faura thus. saei gamanveith vig theinana faura thus. stibna vopjandins + 3. in authidai. manveith vig fraujins. raihtos vaurkeith + 4. staigos guths unsaris. vas iohannes daupjands in authidai jah + 5. merjands daupein idreigos du aflageinai fravaurhte. jah usiddjedun + du imma all iudaialand jah iairusaulymeis jah daupidai + vesun allai in iaurdane awai fram imma andhaitandans fravaurhtim + 6. seinaim. vasuth-than iohannes gavasiths taglam ulbandaus + jah gairda filleina bi hup seinana jah matida thramsteins + 7. jah milith haithivisk jah merida qithands. qimith svinthoza mis sa + afar mis. thizei ik ni im vairths anahneivands andbindan skaudaraip + 8. skohe is. aththan ik daupja izvis in vatin. ith is daupeith izvis + {582} + 9. in ahmin veihamma. jah varth in jainaim dagam. qam + iesus fram nazaraith galeilaias jah daupiths vas fram iohanne in + 10. iaurdane. jah suns usgaggands us thamma vatin gasaw usluknans + 11. himinans jah ahman sve ahak atgaggandan ana ina. jah + stibna qam us himinam. thu is sunus meins sa liuba. in thuzei + 12. vaila galeikaida. jah suns sai. ahma ina ustauh in authida. + 13. jah vas in thizai authidai dage fidvortiguns fraisans fram satanin + 14. jah vas mith diuzam jah aggileis andbahtidedun imma. ip afar + thatei atgibans varth iohannes. qam iesus in galeilaia merjands + 15. aivaggeljon thiudangardjos guths qithands thatei usfullnoda thata + mel jah atnewida sik thiudangardi guths. idreigoth jah galaubeith + 16. in aivaggeljon. jah warbonds faur marein galeilaias gasaw + seimonu jah andraian brothar is. this seimonis. vairpandans + 17. nati in marein. vesun auk fiskjans. jah qath im iesus. hirjats + 18. afar mis jah gatauja igqis vairthan nutans manne. jah suns + 19. affetandans tho natja seina laistidedun afar imma. jah jainthro + inngaggands framis leitil gasaw iakobu thana zaibaidaiaus jah + 20. iohanne brothar is jah thans in skipa manvjandans natja. jah + suns haihait ins jah affetandans attan seinana zaibaidaiu in thamma + skipa mith asnjam galithun afar imma jah galithun in kafarnaum. + 21. jah suns sabbato daga galeithands in synagogen laisida + 22. ins jah usfilmans vaurthun ana thizai laiseinai is. unte vas + laisjands + 23. ins sve valdufni habands jah ni svasve thai bokarjos. jah + vas in thizai synagogen ize manna in unhrainjamma ahmin jah + 24. ufhropida qithands. fralet. wa uns jah thus iesu nazorenai. + qamt fraqistjan uns. kann thuk was thu is. sa veiha guths. + 25. jah andbait ina iesus qithands. thahai jah usgagg ut us thamma. + 26. ahma unhrainja. jah tahida ina ahma sa unhrainja jah hropjands + 27. stibnai mikilai usiddja us imma. jah afslauthnodedun + allai sildaleikjandans. svaei sokidedun mith sis misso qithandans. + wa sijai thata. wo so laiseino so niujo. ei mith valdufnja jah + ahmam thaim unhrainjam anabiudith jah ufhausjand imma. + 28. usiddja than meritha is suns and allans bisitands galeilaias. + 29. jah suns us thizai synagogen usgaggandans qemun in garda seimonis + 30. jah andraiins mith iokobau jah iohannem. ith svaihro + 31. seimonis log in brinnon. jah suns qethun imma bi ija. jah + duatgaggands urraisida tho undgreipands handu izos. jah affailot + 32. tho so brinno suns jah andbahtida im. andanahtja than vaurthanamma. + than gasaggq sauil. berun du imma allans thans ubil + {583} + 33. habandans jah unhulthons habandans. jah so baurgs alla garunnana + 34. vas at daura. jah gahailida managans ubil habandans + missaleikaim sauhtim jah unhulthons managos usvarp jah ni + 35. fralailot rodjan thos unhulthons. unte kunthedun ina. jah air + uhtvon usstandans usiddja jah galaith ana authjana stath jah jainar + 36. bath. jah galaistans vaurthun imma seimon jah thai mith + 37. imma. jah bigitandans ina qethun du imma thatei allai thuk + 38. sokjand. jah qath du im. gaggam du thaim bisunjane haimom + 39. jah baurgim. ei jah jainar merjau. unte duthe qam. jah + vas merjands in synagogim ize and alla galeilaian jah unholthons + 40. usvairpands. jah qam at imma thrutsfill habands bidjands + ina jah knivam knussjands jah qithands du imma thatei. jabai + 41. vileis. magt mik gahrainjan. ith iesus infeinands ufrakjands + handu seina attaitok imma jah qath imma. viljau. vairth hrains. + 42. jah bithe qath thata iesus. suns thata thrutsfill affaith af imma jah + 43. hrains varth. jah gawotjands imma suns ussandida ina jah qath + 44. du imma. saiw ei mannhun ni qithais vaiht ak gagg thuk silban + ataugjan gudjin jah atbair fram gahraineinai peinai. thatei + 45. anabauth moses du veitvodithai im. ith is usgaggands dugann + merjan filu jah usqithan thata vaurd. svasve is juthan ni mahta + andaugjo in baurg galeithan ak uta ana authjaim stadim vas. + jah iddjedun du imma allathro. + +II. + +OLD HIGH-GERMAN. + +MUSPILLI. + +_From Schmeller._ + + ... s[^i]n ta piqueme, + Das er towian scal, + Wanta s[^a]r so sih dui s[^e]la + In dem sind arhevit, + Ente si den l[^i]hhamun + Likkan l[^a]zzit; + So quimith ein heri + Fona himilzungalon; + Daz andar fona pehhe: + {584} + Dar p[^a]gant siu umpi. + Sorg[^e]n mac diu s[^e]la, + Unzi diu suona arg[^e]t, + Za wideremo herie, + Si gihalot werde. + Wanta ipu sia daz Satanazsses + Kisindi giwinnit, + Das leitet sia s[^a]r + Dar iru leid wirdit, + In fiur enti in finstri, + Dazu ist reht virinlih ding. + Upi sia avar kihalont die, + Die dar fona himile quemant, + Enti si dero engilo eigan wirdit, + Die pringant sia s[^a]r [^u]f in himilo r[^i]hhi, + Dar[^i] est l[^i]p [^a]no t[^o]d, lioht [^a]no finstri, + Selida [^a]no sorgun; dar nist neoman suih. + Denne der mar in pard[^i]su + P[^u] kiwinnit, + H[^u]s in himile, + Dar quimit imu hilfa kinuok + Pidiu ist durft mihhil allero manno welilihemo + Daz in es s[^i]n muot kispane, + Daz er kotes willun + Kerno tuo, + Ente hella fuir + Harto w[^i]s[^e], + Pehhes pina, + Dar piutit den Satanaz altist + Heizzan lauc. So mac huckan za diu, + Sorg[^e]n dr[^a]to + Der sih suntigen weiz. + W[^e] demo in vinstr[^i] scal + S[^i]no virina stuen, + Prinnan in pehhe; + Daz ist rehto palwig ding-- + Daz man den har[^e]t ze gote, + Ente imo helfa ni quimit; + W[^a]nit sih kin[^a]da + {585} + Diu w[^e]naga s[^e]la + Ni ist in kihuctin + Himiliskin gote, + Wanta hiar in werolti + After ni werk[^o]ta. + So denne der mahtigo khuninc + Daz mahal kipannit + Dara scal queman + Chunno kil[^i]hhaz + Denne ni kitar parno nohhein + Den pan furisizzan, + D[^i] allero manno wel[^i]h + Ze demo mahale sculi, + Der scal er, vora demo ricche, + Az rahhu stantan, + P[^i] daz er, in werolti, + Kiwerkota hap[^e]ta. + Daz h[^o]rt ih rahhon + Dia werolt-rehtw[^i]son, + Daz sculi der Antichristo + Mit Eliase p[^a]gan. + Der warch ist kiw[^a]fanit; + Denne wirdit untar in w[^i]k arhapan; + Khensun sind so kreftic, + Diri kosa ist so mihhil. + Elias str[^i]t[^i]t + P[^i] den ewigon l[^i]p, + Wili den rehtkernon + Daz r[^i]hhi kistarkan; + Pidiu scal imo halfan + Der himiles kiwaltit. + Der Anticristo st[^e]t + P[^i] dem Altfiante + St[^e]t p[^i] demo Satanase, + Der inan farsenkan scal; + Pidiu scal er in der w[^i]csteti + Wunt pivallan, + Enti in demo sinde + Sigalos werdan. + {586} + Doh w[^a]nit des vila gotmanno, + Daz Elias in demo w[^i]ge arwartit (werdit). + S[^a]r so daz Eliases pluot + In erda kitruifit, + So inprinnant die perga, + Poum ni kistentit + Einic in erdu, + Aha artrukn[^e]nt, + Muor varsuilhet sih, + Suilizot lougui der himil + M[^a]no vallit, + Prinnit mittilagart, + Stein ni kistentit einik in erdu. + Verit denne stuatago in lant, + Verit mit diu viuriu + Viriho w[^i]s[^o]n, + Dar ni mai denne m[^a]k andremo + Helfan vora dema Muspille. + Denne daz preita wasal + Allaz varprinnit, + Enti viur enti luft + Iz allaz arfurpit, + War ist denne diu marha, + Dar man dar eo mit s[^i]nem magon + (Diu marha ist farprunnan + Diu s[^e]la st[^e]t pidungan), + Ni weiz mit win puoze; + S[^a]r verit si za w[^i]ze. + Pidui ist dem manne so guot, + Denne er ze demo mahale quimit, + Daz er rahhono welihha + Rehto arteile; + Denne ni darf er sorg[^e]n, + Denne er ze deru suonu quimit. + Denne varant engila; + Uper dio marho, + Wecchant diota, + W[^i]ssant ze dinge; + Denne scal manno gel[^i]h + {587} + Fona deru moltu arsten; + L[^o]ssan sih ar dero l[^e]uuo vazzon + Scal imo avar s[^i]n l[^i]p piqueman, + Daz er s[^i]n reht allaz + Kirahhon muozzi, + Enti imo after s[^i]nen t[^a]tin + Arteilet werde. + Denne der gisizzit, + Der dar suonnan scal, + Enti arteillan scal, + T[^o]ten enti quekken, + Denne st[^e]t darumpi + Engilo menigi, + Quotero gomono girust so mihhil. + Dara quimit ze deru rightungu so vilo dia dar arstent, + So dar manno nohhein + Wiht pim[^i]dan ni mak; + Dar scal denne hant sprehhan, + Houpit sag[^e]n, + Allero lido wehh + Unsi id den luzigun vinger. + Ni weiz der w[^e]nago man + Wielihhan urteil er hab[^e]t; + Denne er mit den miaton + Marrit daz rehta, + Daz der tiuval darp[^i] + Kitarnit stentit; + Der hab[^e]t in ruovu + Rahhono welihha, + Daz der man er enti s[^i]d + Upiles kifrumita, + Daz er iz allaz kisag[^e]t, + Denne or ze deru suonu quimit. + * * * * * * + +{588} + +III. + +ANGLO-SAXON. + +Evangelium Nicodemi, xxi. + +_From Thwaite's Heptateuch._ + + Hyt waes dha swithe angrislic, dha dha Satanas, dhaere Helle ealdor and + thaes deathes heretoga, cwaeth to thaere Helle; "Gegearwa the sylfe, + that dhu maege Chryst onfon; se hyne sylfne gewuldrod haefdh, and ys + Godes sunu and eac man, and eac se Deadh ys hyne ondraedende, and myn + sawl ys swa unrot thaet me thincth thaet ic alybban ne maeg, for thig + he ys mycel wydherwynna and yfel wyrcende ongean me, and eac ongean + the: and faela, the ic haefde to me gewyld and to atogen, blynde and + healte, gebygede and hreoslan, eallo he fram dhe atyhdh." Seo Hell tha, + swithe grymme and swithe egeslice, answarode dha Satanase dham ealdan + deofle, and cwaedh: "Hwaet is se the ys swa strang and swa myhtig, gif + he man is, thaet he ne sig thone Deadh ondraedende, the wyt gefyrn + beclysed haefdon, for tham ealle tha the on eorthan anweald haefdon thu + hig myd thynre myhte to me getuge, and ic hig faeste geheold; and, gif + thu swa mihhtig eart swa thu aer waere, hwaet ys se man and se Haelend + the ne sig thone Deadh and thyne mihte ondraedende? to fordhan ic wat, + gif he on mennyscnysse swa mihtig ys, thaet he nather ne unc ne thond + Deadh ne ondraet, thonne gefohdh he the and the byth aefre wa to ecere + worulde." Satanos tha, thaes cwicsusles ealdor thaere Helle andswarode, + and thus cwaed: "Hwaet twynedh the, oththe hwaet ondraedst thu the + thone Haelend to onfonne, mynne wytherwynnan and eac thynne; Ac fordhon + ic his costnode, and ic gedyde him thaet eal thaet Iudeisce folc thaet + hig waeron ongean him myd yrre and mid andan awehte, and ic gedyde + thaet he waes mid spere gesticod, and ic gedyde thaet hym man dryncan + mengde myd eallan and myd ecede, and ic gedyde thaet man hym treowene + rode gegearwode, and hyne thaer on aheng, and hyne mid naeglum + gefaestnode and nu aet nextan ic wylle his deadh to the gelaedan, and + he sceal beon undertheod agwhaer ge me ge the." Seo Hell tha swythe + angrysenlice thus cwoeth; "Wyte thaet dhu swa do thaet he dha deadan + fram me ateo, for tham the her faela syndon geornfulle fram me mig, + thaet hig on me wunian noldon; ac ic wat thaet hig {589} fram mig ne + gewytath thurh heora agene myhte, butan hig se Aelmytiga God fram me + ateo, se the Lazarum of me genam, thone the ic heold deadne feower nyht + faestne gebunden, ac ic hyne aeft cwicne ageaf thurh his bedodu." Da + andswarode Satanas and cwaeth: "Se ylca hyt is se the Lazarum of unc + bam genam." Seo Hell hym tha thus to cwaep. "Eala hic halgige the thuhr + thyne maegenu, and eac thuhr myne, thaet thu naefre ne gethafige paet + he on me cume, for tham tha ic gehyrde, thaet worde his bebodes, ic was + myd miclum ege afyriht, and ealle mynne arleasan thenas waeron samod + myd me gedrehte and gedrefede, swa thaet we ni myhton Lazarum + gehealdan, ac he waes hyne asceacende eal swa earn thonne he myd + hraedum flythe wyle fordh afleon, and he swa waes fram us raefende, and + seo eorthe the Lazarus deadan lichaman heold, heo hyne cwycne ageaf, + and thaet ic nu wat thaet se man the eall thaet gedyde thaet he ys on + Gode strang and myhtig, and gif thu hyne to me laedest, ealle tha the + her syndon on thysum waelhreowan cwearterne beclysde, and on thysum + bendum myd synnum gewrydhene, ealle he myd thys godcundnysse fram me + atyhdh, and to lyfe gelaet." + +IV. + +_From Schmid's Anglo-Saxon Laws._ + +This syndon tha domas the Aelfred se cyning geceas. + + Drihten waes precende thaes word to Moyse and thus cwaedh: + + 1. Ic eam drihten thin god. Ic the utgelaedde of Aegypta land and of + heora theowdome; ne lufa thu odhre fremde godas ofer me. + + 2. Ne minne naman ne cig thu on idelnesse, forthon the thu ne bist + unscyldig widh me, gif thu on idelnesse cigst minne naman. + + 3. Gemine thaet thu gehalgie thone raestedaeg. Wyrceadh eow syx dagas, + and on tham seofadhan restadh eow, thu and thin sunu and thine dohter + and thin theowe and thine wylne and thin weorcynten and se cuma the + bidh binnan thinan durum. Fortham on syx dagum Crist geworhte heofenas + and eordhan, saeas and ealle gesceafta the on him sint and hine gereste + on tham seofadhan daege, and forthon drihten hine gehalgode. + + 4. Ara thinum faeder and thinre meder, tha the drihten sealde the, + thaet thu sy thy leng libbende on eordhan. + + 5. Ne slea thu. + + {590} 6. Ne stala thu. + + 7. Ne lige thu dearnunga. + + 8. Ne saege thu lease gewitnesse widh thinum nehstan. + + 9. Ne wilna thu thines nehstan yrfes mid unrihte. + + 10. Ne wyrc thu the gyldene godas odhdhe seolfrene. + + 11. This synd tha domas the thu him settan scealt. s. 1. Gif hwa + gebycge Christenne theow, VI gear theowige he, the seofodhan beo he + freoh orceapunga. s. 2. Mid swylce hraegle he ineode, mid swilce gange + he ut. s. 3. Gif he wif sylf haebbe, gange heo ut mid him. s. 4. Gif se + hlaford thonne him wif sealde, sy heo and hire beam thaes hlafordes. + s. 5. Gif se theowa thonne cwaedhe: nelle ic fram minum hlaforde, ne + fram minum wife, ne fram minum bearne,--breng hine thonne his hlaford + to thaere dura thaes temples and thurhthyrlige his eare mid eale to + tacne, thaet he sy aefre sydhdhan theow. + + * * * * * + + 13. Se man the his gewealdes monnan ofslea, swelte se deadhe. Se-the + hine thonne neades ofsloge odhdhe unwillum odhdhe ungewealdes, swylce + hine god swa sende on his honda and he hine ne ymb syrede, sy he his + feores wyrdhe and folcrihtre bot, gif he frydhstowe gesece. Gif hwa + thonne of gyrnesse odhdhe gewealdes ofslea his thone nehstan thurh + syrwa, aluc thu hine fram minum weofode, to tham thaet he deadhe + swelte. + + 14. Se-the slea his faeder odhdhe his modor, ne sceal deadhe sweltan. + + 15. Se-the frione forstaele and he hyne bebycge and hit onbetaeled sy, + thaet he hine bereccan ne maeg, swelte se deadhe. s. 1. Se-se wyrge his + faeder odhdhe his modor, swelte se deadhe. + + 16. Gif hwa slea his thone nehstan mid stane odhdhe mid fyste, and he + theah utgangan maege be stafe, begyte him laece and wyrce his weorc tha + hwile, the he sylf ne maege. + + 17. Se-the slea his agenne theowne esne odhdhe mennen, and he ne sy thy + daeges dead, theah he libbe twa niht odhdhe threo, ne bidh he ealles + swa scyldig, forthon the hit waes his agen feoh. Gif he thonne sy + idaeges dead, thonne sitte seo scyld on him. + + 18. Gif hwa on ceast eacniend wif gewerde, bete thone aefwyrdlan swa + him domeras gereccan. Gif heo dead sy, sylle sawle widh sawle. + + 19. Gif hwa odhrum his eage odhdo, sylle his agen for; todh for todh, + handa for handa, fet for fet, baerning for baerning, wund widh wund, + lael widh laele. + + {591} 20. Gif hwa ofslea his theowe odhdhe his theowenne thaet eage ut, + and he thonne hi gedo aenigge, gefreoge hi forthon. Gif he thonne todh + ofslea, do thaet ylce. + + 21. Gif oxa ofhnite wer odhdhe wif, thaet hy deade synd, sy he mid + stanum ofweorpod and ne sy his flaesc geeton and se hlaford bidh + unscyldig. s. 1. Gif se oxa hnitol waere twam dagum aere odhdhe thrym + and se hlaford hit wist and hine inne betynan nolde, and he thonne were + odhdhe wif ofsloge, sy he mid stanum ofworpod and sy se hlaford + ofslegen odhdhe forgolden, swa thaet witan to riht findan. s. 2. Sunu + odhdhe dohtor gif he ofstinge, thaes ylcan domes sy he wyrdhe. s. 3. + Gif he thonne theow odhdhe theowe mennen ofstynge, gesylle thaem + hlaford XXX scill. seolfres and se oxa sy mid stanum ofworpod. + + 22. Gif hwa adelfe waeterpytte odhdhe betynedne untyne and hine eft ne + betyne, gyld swylc neat swa thaer on befealle and haebbe him thaet + dead. + + 23. Gif oxa odhres mannes oxan gewundige and he thonne dead sy, + bebycggen thone oxan and haebben him thaet weordh gemaene and eac thaet + flaesc swa thaes deadan. Gif se hlaford thonne wiste, thaet se oxa + hnitol waere and hine healdan nolde, sylle him odherne oxan fore and + haebbe him ealle thaet flaesc. + + 24. Gif hwa forstaele odhres oxan and hine ofslea odhdhe bebycge, sylle + twegen widh and feower sceap widh anum. Gif he haebbe hwaet he sylle, + sy he sylf beboht widh tham feoh. + + 25. Gif theof brece mannes hus nihtes and he wyrdhe thaer ofslaegen, ne + sy he na manslaeges scyldig, the him sloge. Gif he sydhdhan aefter + sunnan upgonge this dedh, he bidh mansleges scyldig and he thonne sylfa + swylte, butan he nyddaeda waere. Gif mid him cwicum sy funden thaet he + aer stale, be twyfealdum forgylde hit. + + 26. Gif hwa gewerde odhres monnes wingeard odhdhe his aeceras odhdhe + his landes awuht, gebete swa hit man geeahtige. + + 27. Gif fyr sy ontended ryt to baernenne, gebete thone aefwerdelsan se + thaet fyr ontendedh. + + 28. Gif hwa odhfaeste his friend feoh, gif he hit sylf stael, forgylde + be twyfealdum. s. 1. Gif he nyste, hwa hit staele, geladige hine + sylfne, thaet he thaer nan facn ne gefremede. s. 2. Gif hit thonne cucu + feoh waere and he secge, thaet hit here name odhdhe thaet hit sylf + acwaele, and he gewitnesse haebbe, ne thearf he thaet gyldan. s. 3. Gif + he thonne gewitnesse naebbe, and he him ne getriewe ne sy, swerige he + thonne. {592} + + * * * * * + + 30. Tha foemnan the gewunniadh onfon galdorcraeftigan and scinlaecan + and wiccan, ne laet thu tha libban. + + * * * * * + + 32. And se the godgeldum onsaecge ofer god aenne, swelte deadhe. + + 33. Utancumene and aettheodige ne geswenc thu no, forthon the ge waeron + aeltheodige on Aegypta land. + + 34. Tha wudewan and tha steopcilde ne sceadhdhadh ne hi nawer deriadh. + Gif ge thonne elles dodh, hi cleopiadh to me and ic gehire hi, and ic + eow thonne slea mid minum sweorde and ic gedo paet eowra wif bidh + wudewan and eowre bearn bydh steopcilde. + + 35. Gif thu feoh to borh gesylle thinum geferan, the mid the eardian + wille, ne nide thu hine swa nidling and ne gehene thu hine mid thy + eacan. + + 36. Gif man naebbe butan anfeald hraegle hine mid to wreonne and to + werianne and he hit to wedde sylle, aer sunnan setlgange sy hit agyfen. + Gif thu swa ne dest, thonne cleopadh he to me and ic hine gehyre, + forthon the ic eom swidhe mildheort. + + 37. Ne tael thu thinne drihten, ne thone hlaford thaes folces ne werge + thu. + + 38. Thine teodhan sceattas and thine frumripan gangendes and weaxendos + agyfe thu gode. + + 39. Ealle thaet flaesc thaet wilddeor laefan, ne etan ge thaet ac + sylladh hit hundum. + + 40. Leases mannes word ne recce thu no thaes to gehyranno, ne his domas + ne gethafa thu, ne naene gewitnysse aefter him ne saga thu. + + 41. Ne wend thu the na on thaes folces unraed and on unriht gewillon + hiora spraece and gecleps ofer thin riht, and on thaes unwisestan lare + thu ne gethafa. + + 42. Gif the becume odhres mannes gymeleas feoh on hand, theah hit sy + thin feonde, gecydhe hit him. + + 43. Dem thu swidhe emne; de dem thu odherne dom paem welegan odherne + tham earman, ne odherne tham leofran odherne tham ladhran ne deme thu. + + 44. Onscuna thu a leasunga. + + 45. Sodhfaestne man and unscildigne, ne acwele thu thone aefre. + + 46. Ne onfo thu naefre medsceattum, forthon hi ablendadh ful oft wisra + manna gethoht and hiora word onwendadh. + + {593} 47. Tham aeltheodigan and utancumenan ne laet thu na uncudhlice + widh hine, ne mid nanum unrihtum thu hine ne drecce. + + 48. Ne swerigen ge naefre under haedhene godas, ne on nanum thingum ne + cleopien ge to him. + +V. + +OPENING OF BEOWULF. + +_Edited and Translated by J. M. Kemble._ + + Hwaet we G['a]r-Dena, + in gear-dagum, + the['o]d-c[.y]ninga, + thr[.y]m ge-frunon-- + h[^u] dha aethelingas + ellen fremedon-- + oft Sc[.y]ld Scefing, + sceathen(a) thre['a]tum, + moneg[=u] maegthum, + meodo-setla of-te['a]h-- + egsode eorl-- + s[.y]dhdhan ['ae]rest weardh + fe['a]-sceaft funden; + he thaes fr['o]fre ge-b['a](d), + we['o]x under wolcnum, + weordh-m[.y]ndum th['a]h; + odh [=th] him ['ae]g-hwl[.y]c + th['a]ra ymb-sittendra, + ofer hron-r['a]de, + h['y]ran scolde, + gomban g[.y]ldan-- + [=th] w['ae]s g['o]d c[.y]ning-- + dhaem eafera w['ae]s + aefer cenned, + geong in geardum, + thone g['o]d sende + folce to fr['o]fre; + f[.y]ren-thearfe on-geat, + [=th] h['i]e ['ae]r drugon, + + aldor-(le)['a]se. + lange hw['i]le, + him thaes l['i]f-fre['a], + wuldres wealdend, + worold-['a]re for-geaf-- + Be['o]-wulf w['ae]s breme, + bl['ae]d w['i]de sprang, + Sc[.y]ldes eafera, + Scede-landum in-- + swa sceal (wig-fru)ma + g['o]de ge-wircean-- + fromum feo-giftum, + on faeder-(feo)rme; + [=th] hine, on [.y]lde, + eft ge-wunigen + wi(l)-ge-s['i]thas, + thonne wig cume. + le['o]de ge-l['ae]sten, + lof-d['ae]d[=u] sceal, + in maegthage-hwaere, + man ge-the['o]n---- + him, dh['a] Sc[.y]ld ge-w['a]t + t['o] ge-scaep hw['i]le + fela-hror feran + on fre['a]n wae re-- + h['i] h[.y]ne th['a] aet-b['ae]ron + t['o] brimes farodhe, + sw['ae]se ge-s['i]thas, + sw['a] he selfa baed; + {594} + thenden wordum we['o]ld + wine Sc[.y]ldinga + le['o]f land-fruma + lange ['a]hte---- + thaer aet h['y]dhe st['o]d + hringed-stefna, + isig and ['u]t-f['u]s, + aethelinges faer; + ['a]-ledon th['a] + le['o]fne the['o]den, + be['a]ga br[.y]ttan, + on bearm scipes, + m['ae]rne be m['ae]ste: + thaer w['ae]s m['a]dma fela + of feor-wegum + fraetwa ge-l['ae]ded. + Ne h['y]rde ic c[.y]mlicor + ceol ge-g[.y]rwan, + hilde-waepnum + and headho-w['ae]dum, + billum and b[.y]rnum + him on bearme laeg + m['a]dma menigo, + tha him mid scoldon + on fl['o]des aeht + feor ge-w['i]tan. + Nalaes h['i] hine laessan + l['a]cum te['o]dan, + the['o]d-ge-stre['o]num, + thon th['a] d[.y]don + the hine, aet frum-sceafte, + fordh on-sendon, + ['ae]nne ofer ['y]dhe, + umbor-wesende. + th['a] g[.y]t h['i]e him ['a]-setton + segen (g[.y]l denne, + he['a]h ofer he['a]fod-- + leton holm ber(an) + geafon on g['a]r-secg: + him w['ae]s geomor-sefa + murnende m['o]d---- + men ne cunnon + secgan, t['o] s['o]dhe, + s['e]le raedenne, + haeledh under heofen[=u] + hw['a] thaem hlaeste on-feng. + +VI. + +THE BATTLE OF BRUNANBURG. + +_From Warton's History of English Poetry,_ _Ed._ 1840. Vol. I. p. lxvii. +_Translated_ by R. Taylor. + + Aethelst['a]n cyning, + eorla drihten, + boorna be['a]h-gyfa, + and his br['o]ther eac, + Eadmund aetheling, + ealdor langne tir, + geslogon aet secce, + sweorda ecgum, + ymbe Brunanburh. + Bord-weal clufon, + heowon heatho-linda, + hamora lafum, + e['a]foran Eadweardes. + Swa him geaethele waes + from cneo-maegum + thaet h['i]e aet campe oft, + {595} + with lathra gehwaene, + land ealgodon, + hord and h['a]mas, + hettend crungon. + Scotta leode, + and scip-flotan, + faege feollon. + Feld dennade, + secga swate, + sith-than sunne ['u]p, + on morgen-t['i]d, + maere tuncgol, + gl['a]d ofer grundas, + Godes candel be orht, + ['e]ces Drihtnes; + oth-thaet sio aethele gesceaft, + s['a]h t['o] setle. + Thaer laeg secg monig, + g['a]rum ageted, + guman northere, + ofer scyld scoten. + Swylc Scyttisc eac, + werig wiges saed. + West-Seaxe forth, + ondlangne daeg + eorod-cystum, + on last laegdon + lathum theodum. + Heowon here-flyman, + hindan thearle, + mecum mylen-scearpum. + Myrce ne wyrndon + heardes hand-plegan, + haeletha nanum, + th['a]ra the mid Anlafe, + ofer ear-geblond, + on lides bosme, + land gesohton, + faege to feohte. + Fife laegon, + on th['a]m campstede, + cyningas geonge, + sweordum aswefede. + Swylc seofen ['e]ac + eorlas Anlafes; + unr['i]m heriges, + flotan and Sceotta. + Thaer geflymed wearth + Northmanna bregu, + nyde gebaeded, + to lides stefne, + litle werede. + Cread cnear on-flot, + cyning ut-gewat, + on fealowe flod, + feorh generede. + Swylc thaer ['e]ac se froda, + mid fleame c['o]m, + on his cyththe north, + Constantinus, + har hylderinc + Hreman ne th['o]rfte + meca gemanan. + Her waes his maga sceard, + freonda gefylled, + on folc-stede, + beslaegen aet secce; + and his sunu (he) forlet + on wael-stowe, + wundum-forgrunden, + geongne aet guthe. + Gylpan ne th['o]rfte, + beorn blanden-feax, + bill-geslehtes, + eald inwitta; + ne Anl['a]f thy m['a], + mid heora here-lafum, + hlihan ne thorfton, + {596} + thaet h['i] beadu-weorca + beteran wurdon, + on camp-stede, + cumbol-gehnastes, + g['a]r mittinge, + gumena gemotes, + waepen-gewrixles, + thaes the h['i]e on wael-felda + with Eadweardes + e['a]foran plegodon. + Gewiton hym tha Northmen, + naegledon cnearrum, + dreorig daretha l['a]f, + on dinges mere, + ofer deop waeter, + Dyflin secan, + eft Yraland, + aewisc-mode. + Swylce th['a] gebrother, + begen aet samne, + cyning and aetheling, + cyththe sohton, + West Seaxna land, + wiges hremige. + Laeton him behindan, + hr['a] brittian, + salowig padan, + thone sweartan hraefn, + hyrned-nebban; + and thone hasean padan, + earn aeftan hwit, + aeses brucan, + graedigne guth-hafoc; + and thaet graege deor, + wulf on wealde. + Ne wearth wael m['a]re, + on thys igland, + aefre gyta, + folces gefylled, + beforan thissum, + sweordes ecgum, + thaes the us secgath b['e]c, + ealde uthwitan, + sith-than eastan hider + Engle and Seaxe + ['u]p becomon, + ofer brade brimu + Brytene sohton, + wlance wig-smithas, + Weales ofer-comon, + eorlas ['a]rhw['a]te, + eard begeaton. + +VII. + +HILDIBRAND AND HATHUBRAND. + +TEXT OF GRIMM. TRANSLATION IBID. + +Also in--_Langue et Lit['e]rature des Anciens Francs, par G. Gley_. + + Ih gihorta that seggen, that sie urhetton aenon muotin + Hildibraht enti Hathubrant untar heriuntuem, + Sunu fatar ungo; iro saro rihtun, + Garutun se iro guthhamun, gurtun sih iro suert ana, + Helidos, ubar ringa, do sie to dero hiltu ritun. + {597} + Hiltibraht gimahalta, Heribrantes sunu, her was heroro man, + Ferahes frotoro, her fragen gistuont, + Fohem wortum: wer sin fater wari; + Fires in folche, eddo weliches cnuosles du sis? + Ibu du mi aenan sages, ik mideo are-wet, + Chind in chuninchriche, chud ist min al irmindeot. + Hadubraht gimahalti Hiltibrantes sunu: Dat sagetun mi + Usere liuti alte anti frote, dea erhina warun, + Dat Hilbrant haetti min fater, ih heittu Hadubrant. + Forn her ostar gihueit, floh her Otachres nid + Hina miti Theotriche enti sinero degano filu; + Her furlach in lante luttila sitten + Prut in bure; barn unwahsan, + Arbeolosa heraet, ostar hina det, + Sid delriche darba gistuontum, fatereres mines, + Dat was so friuntlaos man, her was Otachre unmettirri, + Degano dechisto, unti Deotriche darba gistontum; + Her was eo folches at ente, imo was eo feheta ti leop. + Chud was her chonnem mannuma, ni wanin ih, in lib habbe. + Wittu Irmin-Got, quad Hiltibraht, obana ab havane, + Dat du neo danahalt mit sus sippan man dinc in gileitos! + Want her do ar arme wuntane bouga, + Cheiswringu gitan, so imo seder chuning gap + Huneo truhtin; dat ih dir it un bi huldi gibu! + Hadubraht gimalta, Hiltibrantes sunu: + Mit geru scal man geba infahan, + Ort widar orte, du bist dir, alter Hun, ummet, + Spaher, spenis mi mit dinem wortema, + Wilihuh di nu speru werpan, + Pist al so gialtet man, so du ewin inwit fortos; + Dat sagetun mi Sacolidante + Westar ubar Wentilsaeo, dat man wic furnam, + Tot ist Hiltibraht Heribrantes suno, + Hildibrant gimahalta Heribrantes suno: wela gisihu ih, + In dinem hrustim, dat du habes heine herron goten, + Dat du noh bi desemo riche reccheo ni wurti, + Welaga, nu waltant Got, quad Hiltibrant, we wurt skihit! + Ih wallota sumaro enti wintro sehstick urlante. + Dar man mih eo scerita in folc scestantero. + {598} + So man mir at burc einigeru banun ni gifasta; + Nu scal mih suasat chind suertu hauwan, + Bieton mit sinu billiu, eddo ih imo t['i] banin werden. + Doh maht du nu aodlicho, ibu dir din ellent aoc, + In sus heremo man hrusti girwinnan; + Rauba bi hrahanen ibu du dar enic reht habes. + Der si doh nu argosto, quad Hildibrant, ostarliuto, + Der dir nu wiges warne, nu dih es so wel lustit. + Gudea gimeirum niused emotti. + Wer dar sih hiutu dero prel-zilo hrumen muotti, + Erdo desero brunnono bedero waltan. + Do laettun se aerist asckim scritan + Scarpen scurim, dat in dem sciltim stout; + Do stoptun tosamene, starmbort chludun, + Hewun harmilicco huitte scilti + Unti im iro lintun luttilo wurtun-- + +VIII. + +OLD SAXON. + +FROM THE TEXT OF A. YPEIJ. + +_Taalkundig Magazijn._ P. 1, No. 1.--_p. 54._ + +_Psalm_ LIV. + +2. Gehori got gebet min, in ne furuuir bida mina; thenke te mi in gehori +mi. + +3. Gidruouit bin an tilogon minro, in mistrot bin fan stimmon fiundes, in +fan arbeide sundiges. + +4. Uuanda geneigedon an mi unreht, in an abulge unsuoti uuaron mi. + +5. Herta min gidruouit ist an mi, in forta duodis fiel ouir mi. + +6. Forthta in biuonga quamon ouer mi, in bethecoda mi thuisternussi. + +7. In ic quad "uuie sal geuan mi fetheron also duuon, in ic fliugon sal, in +raston sal." + +8. Ecco! firroda ic fliende, inde bleif an eudi. + +9. Ic sal beidan sin, thie behaldon mi deda fan luzzilheide geistis in fan +geuuidere. {599} + +10. Bescurgi, herro, te deile tunga iro, uuanda ic gesag unriht in fluoc an +burgi. + +11. An dag in naht umbefangan sal sia ouir mura ira, unreht in arbeit an +mitdon iro in unreht. + +12. In ne te fuor fan straton iro prisma in losunga. + +13. Uuanda of fiunt flukit mi, is tholodit geuuisso; in of thie thie hatoda +mi, ouir mi mikila thing spreke, ic burge mi so mohti geburran, fan imo. + +14. Thu geuuisso man einmuodigo, leido min in cundo min. + +15. Thu samon mit mi suota nami muos, an huse gode giengon uuir mit geluni. + +16. Cum dot ouir sia, in nithir stigin an hellon libbinda. Uuanda arheide +an selethe iro, an mitdon ini. + +17. Ic eft te gode riepo, in herro behielt mi. + +18. An auont in an morgan in an mitdondage tellon sal ic, in kundon; in he +gehoron sal. + +19. Irlosin sal an frithe sela mina fan then, thia ginacont mi, uuanda +under managon he uuas mit mi. + +20. Gehorun sal got in ginetheron sal sia; thie ist er uueroldi. + +21. Ne geuuisso ist ini uuihsil; in ne forchtedon got. Theneda hant sina an +uuitherloni. + +IX. + +MODERN DUTCH OF HOLLAND. + +_Mark_, _Chap._ I. + +1. Het begin des Evangelies van JEZUS CHRISTUS, den Zoon van God. + +2. Gelijk geschreven is in de Profeten: ziet, Ik zend mijnen Engel voor uw +aangezigt, die uwen weg voor u heen bereiden zal. + +3. De stem des roependen in de woestijn: bereidt den weg des Heeren, maakt +zijne paden regt! + +4. Johannes was doopende in de woestijn, en predikende den doop der +bekeering tot vergeving der zonden. + +5. En al het Joodsche land ging tot hem uit, en die van Jer[^u]zalem; en +werden allen van hem gedoopt in the rivier de Jordaan, belijdende hunne +zonden. + +6. En Johannes was gekleed met kemelshaar, en met eenen {600} lederen +gordel om zijne lendenen, en at sprinkhannen en wilden honig. + +7. En hij predikte, zeggende: na mij komt, die sterker is dan ik, wien ik +niet waardig ben, nederbukkende, den riem zijner schoenen te ontbinden. + +8. Ik heb ulieden wel gedoopt met water, maar hij zal u doopen met den +Heiligen Geest. + +9. En het geschiedde in diezelve dagen, dat Jezus kwam van N['a]zareth, +_gelegen_ in Galil['e]a, en werd van Johannes gedoopt in de Jordaan. + +10. En terstond, als hij uit het water opklom, zag bij de hemelen opengaan, +en den Geest, gelijk eene duive, op hem nederdalen. + +11. En er geschiedde eene stem nit de hemelen: gij zijt mijn geliefde Zoon, +in denwelken Ik mijn welbehagen heb! + +12. En terstond dreef hem de Geest uit in de woestijn. + +13. En hij was aldaar in de woestijn vertig dagen, verzocht van den Satan; +en was bij de wilde gedierten; en de Engelen dienden hem. + +14. En nadat Johannes overgeleverd was, kwam Jezus in Galil['e]a, +predikende het Evangelie van het Koningrijk Gods, + +15. En zeggende: de tijd is vervuld, en het Koningrijk Gods nabij gekomen; +bekeert u, en gelooft het Evangelie. + +16. En wandelende bij de Galil['e]sche zee, zag hij Simon en Andr['e]as, +zijnen broeder, werpende het net in de zee (want zij waren visschers); + +17 En Jezus zeide tot hen: volgt mij na, en ik zal maken, dat gij visschers +der menschen zult worden. + +18. En zij, terstond hunne netten verlatende, zijn hem gevolgd. + +19. En van daar een weinig voortgegaan zijnde, zag hij Jacobus, den zoon +van Zebed['e]ues, en Johannes, zijnen broeder, en dezelve in het schip +hunne netten vermakende. + +20. En terstond riep hij hen; en zij, latende hunnen vader Zebed['e]ues in +het schip, met de huurlingen, zijn hem nagevolgd. + +21. En zij kwamen binnen Kapernauem; en terstond op den Sabbatdag in de +Synagoge gegaan zijnde, leerde hij. + +22. En zij versloegen zich over zijne leer: want hij leerde hen, als magt +hebbende, en niet als de Schriftgeleerden. {601} + +23. En er was in hunne Synagoge een mensch, met eenen onreinen geest, en +hij riep uit, + +24. Zeggende: laat af, wat hebben wij met u _te doen_, gij Jezus +Nazar['e]ner! zijt gij gekomen, om ons to verderven? Ik ken u, wie gij +zijt, _namelijk_ de Heilige Gods. + +25. En Jezus bestrafte hem, zeggende: zwijg stil, en ga nit van hem. + +26. En de onreine geest, hem scheurende, en roepende met eene groote stem, +ging uit van hem. + +27. En zij werden allen verbaasd, zoodat zij onder elkander vraagden, +zeggende: wat is dit? wat nieuwe leer is deze, dat hij met magt ook den +onreineen geesten gebiedt, en zig hem gehoorzaam zijn! + +28. En zijn gerucht ging terstond uit, in het geheel omliggen land van +Galil['e]a. + +29. En van stonde aan uit de Synagoge gegaan zijnde, kwamen zij in het huis +van Simon en Andr['e]as, met Jacobus en Johannes. + +30. En Simons vrouws moeder lag met de koorts; en terstond zeiden zij hem +van haar. + +31. En hij, tot haar gaande, vattede hare hand, en rigtte ze op; en +terstond verliet haar de koorts, en zij diende henlieden. + +32. Als het nu avond geworden was, toen de zon onderging, bragten zij tot +hem allen, die kwalijk gesteld, en van den duivel bezeten waren. + +33. En de geheele stad was bijeenvergaderd omtrent de deur. + +34. En hij genas er velen, die door verscheidene ziekten kwalijk gesteld +waren; en wierpe vele duivelen uit, en liet de duivelen niet toe te +spreken, omdat zij hem kenden. + +35. En des morgens vroeg, als het nog diep in den nacht was, opgestaan +zijnde, ging hij uit, en ging henen in eene woeste plaats, en bad aldaar. + +36. En Simon, en die met hem _waren_, zijn hem nagevolgd. + +37. En zij hem gevonden hebbende, zeiden tot hem: zig zoeken u allen. + +38. En hij zeide tot hen: laat ons in de bijliggende vlekken gaan, opdat ik +ook daar predike: want daartoe ben ik uitgegaan. + +39. En hij predikte in hunne Synagogen, door geheel Galil['e]a, en wierp de +duivelen uit. + +40. En tot hem kwam een melaatsche, biddende hem, en vallende {602} voor +hem op de knieen, en tothem zeggende: indien gij wilt, gij kunt mij +reinigen. + +41. En Jezus, met barmhartigheid innerlijk bewogen zijnde, strekte de hand +uit, en raakte hem aan, en zeide tot hem: ik wil, word gereinigd. + +42. En als hij _dit_ gezegd had, ging de melaatschheid terstond van hem, en +hy werd gereinigd. + +43. En als hij hem strengelijk verboden had, deed hij hem terstond van zich +gaan; + +44. En zeide tot hem: zie, dat gij niemand iets zegt; maar ga heen en +vertoon u zelven den Priester, en offer voor uwe reiniging, hetgeen Mozes +geboden heeft, hun tot eene getuigenis. + +45. Maar hij vitgegaan zijnde, begon vele dingen te verkondigen, en dat +woord te verbreiden, alzoo dat hij niet meer openbaar in de stad kon komen, +maar was buiten in de woeste plaatsen; en zij kwamen tot hem van alle +kanten. + +X. + +OLD NORSE. + +THE DESCENT OF ODIN. + +_From the Edda of Saemund. Copenhagen Edition._ + + 2. + + Upp reis ['O]dhinn + alda gautr, + ok hann ['a] Sleipni + soedhul um lagdhi; + reidh hann nidhr thadhan + Niflheljar til, + moetti hann hvelpi + theim er or helju kom. + + 3. + + S['a] var bl['o]dhugr, + um brj['o]st framan, + ok galdrs foedhur + g['o]l um lengi. + Framm reidh ['O]dhinn, + foldvegr dundi, + hann kom at h['a]fu + Heljar ranni. + + 4. + + Th['a] reidh ['O]dhinn + fyr austan dyrr, + thar er hann vissi + voelu leidhi. + Nam hann vittugri + valgaldr kvedha, + unz naudhig reis, + n['a]s ordh um kvadh: + + {603} + 5. + + "Hvat er manna that + m['e]r ['o]kunnra, + er m['e]r hefir aukit + erfit sinni? + var ek snivin snj['o]fi + ok slegin regni + ok drifin doeggu, + daudh var ek lengi. + + 6. + + "Vegtamr ek heiti, + sonr em ek Valtams, + segdhu m['e]r or helju, + ek mun or heimi: + hveim eru bekkir + baugum s['a]nir, + flet fagrlig + fl['o]dh gulli? + + 7. + + "H['e]r stendr Baldri + of brugginn mjoedhr, + skirar veigar, + liggr skjoeldr yfir; + en ['a]smegir + ['i] ofvaeni; + naudhug sagdhak + n['u] mun ek thegja. + + 8. + + "Thegiattu voelva! + thik vil ek fregna, + unz alkunna, + vil ek enn vita: + hverr mun Baldri + at bana verdha, + ok Odhins son + aldri raena? + + 9. + + "Hoedhr berr h['a]fan + hr['o]dhrbarm thinnig; + hann mun Baldri + at bana verdha, + ok ['O]dhins son + aldri raena; + naudhug sagdhak, + n['u] mun ek thegja. + + 10. + + "Thegiattu voelva! + thik vil ek fregna, + unz alkunna, + vil ek enn vita: + hverr mun heipt Hedhi + hefnt of vinna + edha Baldrs bana + ['a] b['a]l vega? + + 11. + + "Rindr berr + i vostrsoelum, + s['a] mun Odhins sonr + einnaettr vega; + bond um thvaer + n['e] hoefudh kembir + ['a]dhr a b['a]l um berr + Baldrs andskota; + naudhug sagdhak, + n['u] mun ek thegja. + + 12. + + "Thegiattu voelva! + thik vil ek fregna, + unz alkunna, + vil ek enn vita: + hverjar 'ro thaer meyjar, + er at muni gr['a]ta + ok ['a] himin verpa + h['a]lsa skautum? + + {604} + 13. + + "Ertattu Vegtamr, + sem ek hugdha, + heldr ertu ['O]dhinn, + aldinn gautr." + "Ertattu voelva + n['e] vis kona, + heldr ertu thriggja + thursa m['o]dhir. + + 14. + + "Heim ridh th['u], ['O]dhinn! + ok ver hr['o]dhigr! + sv['a] komit manna + meir aptr ['a] vit, + er lauss Loki + lidhr or boendum, + ok ragna roek + rj['u]fendr koma." + +XI. + +ICELANDIC. + +_From Snorro's Heimskringla. Translated by Laing._ + +Y'NGLINGA SAGA. + +KAP. I. + +_Her Segir fr['a] Landa Skipan._ + +Sva er sagt, at kringla heimsins, s['u] er mannf['o]lkit byggir, er mjoek +vag-skorin: g['a]nga hoef st['o]r ['u]r ['u]tsj['a]num inn ['i] jordina. Er +that kunnigt, at haf gengr af Njorvasundum, ok allt ['u]t til +J['o]rsala-lands. Af hafinu gengr l['a]ngr hafsbotn til landnordrs, er +heitir Svartahaf: sa skilr heims thridj['u]ngana: heitir fyrin austan Asia, +en fyrir vestan kalla sumir Evr['o]pa, en sumir Enea. En nordan at +Svartahafi gengr Svithjod in mikla eda in kalda. Sv['i]thj['o]d ena miklu +kalla sumir menn ecki minni enn Serkland h['i]t mikla; sumir jafna henni +vid Bl['a]land hit mikla. Hinn neyrdri lutr Sv['i]thj['o]dar liggr +['o]bygdr af frosti ok kulda, swa sem hinn sydri lutr Bl['a]lands er audr +af s['o]larbruna. I Sv['i]thj['o]d eru st['o]r h['e]rut moerg: thar eru ok +margskonar thjodir undarligar, ok margar t['u]ngur: thar eru risar, ok thar +eru dvergar: thar eru ok bl['a]menn; thar eru d['y]r ok drekar furdulega +st['o]rin. Ur Nordri fr['a] fjoellum theim, er fyrir utan eru bygd alla, +fellr ['a] um Sv['i]thj['o]d, s['u] er at rettu heitir Tanais; h['u]n var +fordum koellut Tanaqv['i]sl edr Vanaqu['i]sl; h['u]n k['e]mur til sj['a]var +inu i Svarta-haf. I Vanaqlv['i]slum var tha kallat Vanaland, edr Vanheimr; +s['u] ['a] skiir heimsthridj['u]ngana; heitir fyrir austan Asia, en fyrir +vestan Evr['o]pa. {605} + +KAP. II. + +_Fr['a] As['i]a Moennum._ + +Fyrir austan Tanaqv['i]sl ['i] As['i]a, var kallat Asa-land edr Asaheimr; +en hoefutborgina, er ['i] var landinu, koelludu their Asgard. En ['i] +borginni var hoefd['i]ngi s['a] er Odinn var kalladr, thar var bl['o]tstadr +mikill. Thar var thar sidr at 12 hofgodar v['o]ru aeztir; skyldu their +r['a]da fyrir bl['o]tum ok d['o]mum manna ['i] milli; that eru Diar +kalladir edr drottnar: theim skyldi thj['o]nustu veita allr folk ok +lotn['i]ng. Odinn var hermadr mikill ok mjoek vidfoerull, ok eignadiz moerg +riki: han var sva Sigrfaell, at ['i] hvoerri orustu feck hann gagn. Ok sva +kom at hans menn tr['u]du thv['i], at hann aetti heimilann sigr ['i] hverri +orustu. That var h['a]ttr hans ef ann sendi menn s['i]na til orustu, edr +adrar sendifarar, at hann lagdi adr hendur ['i] hoefut theim, ok gaf theim +bjanak; tr['u]du their at th['a] mundi vel faraz. Sva var ok um hans menn, +hvar sem their urdu ['i] naudum staddir ['a] sj['a] edr ['a] landi, th['a] +koelludu their ['a] nafn hans, ok th['o]ttuz jafnan f['a] af thvi fro; thar +thottuz their ega allt traust er hann var. Hann f['o]r opt sva l['a]ngt +['i] brot, at hann dvaldiz ['i] ferdinni moerg misseri. + +XII. + +SAGA ['O]LAFS KON['U]NGS TRYGGVASONAR. + +_Bardagi ['i] Stordh_. + +H['a]kon kon['u]ngr hafdhi th['a] fylkt lidhi s['i]no, ok segja menn at +hann steypti af s[`e]r brynjunni ['a]dhr orrostan taekist; H['a]kon +kon['u]ngr valdi mjoek menn medh s[`e]r ['i] hirdh at afli ok hreysti, +sv[^a] sem gert hafdhi Haraldr kon['u]ngr fadhir hans; thar var th['a] medh +kon['u]ngi Thor['a]lfr hinn sterki Sk['o]lmsson, ok gekk ['a] adhra hlidh +kon['u]ngi; hann hafdhi hj['a]lm ok skjoeld, kesju ok sverdh that er kallat +var Fetbreidhr; that var maelt at their H['a]kon kon['u]ngr vaeri +jafnsterkir; thessa getr Th['o]rdhr Sj['a]reksson ['i] dr['a]pu theirri er +hann orti um Th['o]r['a]lf: + + Thar er bavdhbardhir boerdhust + bands j['o] draugar landa + lystr gekk herr til hjoerva + hnitz ['i] Stordh ['a] Fitjum: + ok gimsloengvir g['a]nga + g['i]frs hl[`e]m['a]na dr['i]fu + nausta blaks hit naesta + Nordhmanna gram thordhi. + +{606} En er fylk['i]ngar gengu saman, var fyrst skotit spj['o]tum, +thv['i]naest brugdhu menn sverdhum; Gerdhist th['a] orostan ['o]dh ok +mannskjaed; H['a]kon kon['u]ngr ok Th['o]r['a]lfr gengu th['a] fram um +merkin ok hjoeggu til beggja handa; H['a]kon kon['u]ngr var audhkendr, +meiri enn adhrir menn, l['y]sti ok mjoek af hj['a]lmi hans er s['o]lin +shein ['a]; th['a] vardh vopnaburdhr mikill at kon['u]ngi; t['o]k th['a] +Eyvindr Finnsson hatt einn, ok setti yfir hj['a]lm kon['u]ngsins; th['a] +kalladhi h['a]tt Eyvindr Skreyja: leynist hann n['u] Nordhmanna kon['u]ngr, +edhr hefir hann fl['y]it, thv['i]at horfinn er n['u] gullhj['a]lmrinn? +Eyvindr ok ['A]lfr br['o]dhir hans gengu th['a] hart fram sv[^a] sem +['o]dhir ok galnir vaeri, hjoeggu til beggja handa; tha maelti H['a]kon +kon['u]ngr h['a]tt til Eyvindar: haltu sv[^a] fram stefnunni ef th['u] vill +finna hann Nordhmanna kon['u]ng, Var th['a] skampt at b['i]dha at Eyvindr +kom thar, reiddi upp sverthit ok hj['o] til kon['u]ngs; Th['o]r['a]lfr +skaut vidh honum Eyvindi skildinum, sv[^a] at hann stakadhi vidh; +kon['u]ngr t['o]k th['a] tveim hoendum sverthit Kvernb['i]t, ok hj['o] til +Eyvindar, klauf hj['a]lminn ok hoefudhit alt ['i] herthar nidhr; ['i] +thv['i] bili drap Th['o]r['a]lfr ['A]lf Askmann. Sv[^a] segir Eyvindr +Sk['a]ldaspillir: + + Veit ek at beit enn bitri + byggv['i]ng medhal dyggvan + b['u]lka skidhs or b['a]dhum + benvoendr kon['u]ngs hoendum: + ['u]faelinnklauf ['a]la + eldraugar skoer hauga + gullhjaltadhum galtar + grandr['a]dhr Dana brandi. + +Eptir fall theirra braedhra gekk H['a]kon kon['u]ngr sv[^a] hart fram at +alt hravkk fur honum; sl['o] th['a] felmt ok fl['o]tta ['a] lidh Eir['i]ks +sona, en H['a]kon kon['u]ngr var ['i] oendverdhri sinni fylk['i]ng, ok +fylgdhi fast fl['o]ttamoennum, ok hj['o] t['i]dt ok hart; th['a] fl['o] oer +ein, er Fleinn er kalladhr, ok kom ['i] hoend H['a]koni kon['u]ngi uppi +['i] m['u]sina firir nethan oexl, ok er that margra manna soegn at +sk['o]sveinn Gunnhildar, s['a] er Kisp['i]ngr er nefndr, lj['o]p fram ['i] +thysinn ok kalladhi: gefi r['u]m kon['u]ngs bananum, ok skaut th['a] +fleinnum til kon['u]ngs; en sumir segja at engi vissi hverr skaut; m['a] +that ok vel vera, firir thv['i] at oervar ok spj['o]t ok oennur skotv[^a]pn +flugu sv[^a] thykkt sem dr['i]fa; fjoeldi manns f[`e]ll thar af Eir['i]ks +sonum, en hon['u]ngarnir allir komust ['a] skipin, ok r[`e]ro thegar undan, +en H['a]konar menn eptir theim; sv[^a] segir Th['o]rdhr Sj['a]reksson: +{607} + + Vardhi v['i]ga myrdhir + v['i]dt sv['a] skal fridh sl['i]ta + joefur vildo thann eldast + oendvert f['o]lk ['a] loendum: + starf h['o]fst upp, th['a] er arfi + ['o]tta vanr ['a] fl['o]tta + gulls er gramr var fallinn + Gunnhildar kom sunnan. + + Thr['o]t var s['y]nt th['a] er settust + sinn r['o]dhr vidh thraum stinna + madhr l[`e]t oend ok annarr + ['u]f['a]r baendr s['a]rir + afreks veit that er joefri + allr['i]kr ['i] styr sl['i]kum + goendlar njoerdhr s['a] er gerdhi + gekk naest hugins drekku. + +XIII. + +MODERN SWEDISH. + +FRITHIOFS SAGA. + +XI. + +_Frithiof hos Angantyr._ + + 1. + + Nu aer att saega huru + Jarl Angantyr satt aen; + Uti sin sal af furu, + Ock drack med sina maen; + Han var s[oa] glad i h[oa]gen, + S[oa]g ut [oa]t bl[oa]nad ban, + Der solen sjunk i v[oa]gen, + Allt som aen gyllne svan. + + 2. + + Vid foenstret, gamle Halvar + Stod utanfoer p[oa] vakt; + Hann vaktade med allvar, + Gaf ock p[oa] mjoedet akt. + En sed den gamle hade; + Hann jemt i botten drack; + Ock intet ord hann sade; + Blott hornett i hann stack. + + 3. + + Nu slaengde han det vida + I salen in och qvad, + "Skepp ser jag boeljan rida; + Den faerden aer ej glad. + Maen ser jag doeden naera, + Nu laegga de i land: + Ock tvenne jaettar baera + De bleknade p[oa] strand." + + {608} + 4. + + Utoefver boeljans spegel, + Fr[oa]n salen Jarl s[oa]g ned: + "Det aer Ellidas segel, + Och Frithiof, tror jag, med. + P[oa] g[oa]ngan och p[oa] pannan, + K[oa]nns Thorstens son igen: + S[oa] blickar ingen annan + I Nordens land som den." + + 5. + + Fr[oa]n dryckesbord held modig + Sprang Atle Viking d[oa]: + Svartsk[oa]ggig Berserk, blodig + Ock grym at se upp[oa]. + "Nu, sad' han, vil jag proefva, + Hvad rycktet ment dermed, + At Frithiof svaerd kann doefva; + Och alldrig ber om fred." + + 6. + + Och upp med honom sprungo + Hanns bistra kaempar tolf: + Med forhand luften stungo, + Och svaengde svaerd ock kolf. + De stormade mot stranden, + Hvor troettadt drakskepp stod. + Men Frithiof satt [oa] sanden + Ock talte kraft och mod. + + 7. + + "Laett kunde jag dig faella," + Shrek Atle med stort gny. + "Vill i ditt val dock staella, + Att kaempa eller fly. + Men blott on fred du beder + Fastaen aen kaempe h[oa]rd, + Jag som aen vaen dig leder, + Allt up til Jarlens g[oa]rd." + + 8. + + "Vael aer jag troett af faerden;" + Genmaelte Frithiof vred, + "Dock m[oa] vi proefva svaerden, + Foerr aen jag tigger fred." + D[oa] s[oa]g man st[oa]len ljunga, + I solbrun kaempehand; + P[oa] Angurvadels tunga, + Hvar runa stod i brand. + + 9. + + Nu skiftas svaerdshugg dryga, + Och dr[oa]pslag hagla nu; + Och begges skjoeldar flyga, + P[oa] samma g[oa]ng itu. + De kaempar utan tadel + St[oa] dock i kredsen fast; + Men skarpt bet Angurvadel, + Och Atles klinga brast. + + 10. + + "Mod svaerdloes man jag svaenger," + Sad Frithiof, "ei mitt svaerd." + Men lyster det dig laenger, + Vi proefva annan faerd. + Som v[oa]gor d[oa] on hoesten, + De begge storma an; + Ock st[oa]llbeklaedda broesten, + Sl[oa] taett emot hvarann. + + 11. + + De brottades som bjoernar, + Upp[oa] sitt fjaell af snoe; + De spaende hop som oernar, + Utoefver vredgad sjoe. + Rodfaestad klippa hoelle + Vel knappast ut att st[oa]; + Ock lummig jernek foelle + Foer mindre tag aen s[oa]. + + {609} + 12. + + Fr[oa]n pannan svetten lackar, + Och broestet haefves kallt; + Och buskar, sten, ock backar, + Uppsparkas oefver allt. + Med baefvaen slutet bida + St[oa]llklaedde maen [oa] strand; + Det brottandet var vida + Beroemdt i Nordens land. + + 13. + + Til slut dock Frithiof faellde + Sin fiende til jord, + Hann knaet mod broestet staellde, + Och tallte vredens ord, + "Blott nu mitt svaerd jag hade, + Du svarte Berserksskaegg, + Jag genom lifvet lade, + P[oa] dig den hvassa aegg. + + 14. + + "Det skal ei hinder bringa," + Sad Atle stolt i h[oa]g, + "G[oa] du, ock ta din klinga, + Jag licgar som jag l[oa]g. + Den ena, som den andra, + Skal eng[oa]ng Valhall se: + Idag skal jag vael vandra; + I morgon du kanske." + + 15. + + Ei lange Frithiof droejde; + Den lek han sluta vill: + Han Angurvadel hoejde; + Men Atle l[oa]g dock still. + Det roerde hjeltens sinne; + Sin vrede d[oa] hann band; + Hoell midt i huggett inne, + Ock tog den fallnes hand. + +THE END. + + LONDON: + Printed by SAMUEL BENTLEY & CO., + Bangor House, Shoe Lane. + + * * * * * + + +NOTES + +[1] Qu. the people of _Euten_, in Holstein. + +[2] Zeus, p. 591. + +[3] From Zeuss, _v. v. Frisii, Chauci_. + +[4] The chief works in the two dialects or languages. + +[5] Probably, for reasons, too long to enter upon, those of Grutungs and +Tervings; this latter pointing to Thuringia, the present provincial dialect +of which tract was stated, even by Michaelis, to be more like the +Moeso-Gothic than any other dialect of Germany. + +[6] Nearly analogous to _Ostro_-goth, and _Visi_-goth. + +[7] The meaning of these terms is explained in s. 90-92. The order of the +cases and genders is from Rask. It is certainly more natural than the usual +one. + +[8] Compare with the Anglo-Saxon adjectives in s. 85. + +[9] Compare with the Anglo-Saxon adjectives in s. 85. + +[10] The syllables _vulg-_, and _Belg-_, are quite as much alike as +_Teuton-_, and _Deut-sch_; yet how unreasonable it would be for an +Englishman to argue that he was a descendant of the _Belgae_ because he +spoke the _Vulgar_ Tongue. _Mutatis mutandis_, however, this is the exact +argument of nine out of ten of the German writers. + +[11] Tacitus, De Mor. Germ. 40. + +[12] And on the west of the Old Saxons is the mouth of the river Elbe and +Friesland; and then north-west is the land which is called _Angle_ and +Sealand, and some part of the Danes. + +[13] He sailed to the harbour which is called Haedhum, which stands betwixt +the Wends (_i.e._ the Wagrian Slaves, for which see s. 42) and Saxons, and +_Angle_, and belongs to Denmark ... and two days before he came to Haedhum, +there was on his starboard Gothland, and Sealand, and many islands. On that +land lived _Angles_, before they hither to the land came. + +[14] Zeus, in _voc_. + +[15] Zeus, in _voc._ + +[16] Zeus, in _voc._ + +[17] See G. D. S. Vol. ii. II. + +[18] Zeus, p. 492. + +[19] As in _Amherst_ and _inherent_. + +[20] The meaning of the note of interrogation is explained in s. 148. + +[21] Edinburgh Philosophical Magazine. + +[22] Natural History of Man. + +[23] This list is taken from Smart's valuable and logical English Grammar. + +[24] As in _Shotover Hill_, near Oxford. + +[25] As in _Jerusalem artichoke_. + +[26] A sort of silk. + +[27] _Ancient Cassio_--"Othello." + +[28] This class of words was pointed out to me by the very intelligent +Reader of my first edition. + +[29] V. Beknopte Historie van't Vaderland, i. 3, 4. + +[30] Hist. Manch. b. i. c. 12. + +[31] Dissertation of the Origin of the Scottish Language.--JAMIESON'S +Etymological Dictionary, vol. i. p. 45, 46. + +[32] Sir W. Betham's Gael and Cymry, c. iii. + +[33] Scripturae Linguaeque Phoeniciae Monumenta, iv. 3. + +[34] To say, for instance, _Chemist_ for _Chymist_, or _vice vers[^a]_; for +I give no opinion as to the proper mode of spelling. + +[35] Mr. Pitman, of Bath, is likely to add to his claims as an +orthographist by being engaged in the attempt to determine, inductively, +the orthoepy of a certain number of doubtful words. He collects the +pronunciations of a large number of educated men, and takes that of the +majority as the true one. + +[36] Gesenius, p. 73. + +[37] Write one letter twice. + +[38] Rev. W. Harvey, author of Ecclesiae Anglicanae Vindex Catholicus. + +[39] Murray's Grammar, vol. i. p. 79. + +[40] Used as adverbs. + +[41] Used as the plurals of _he_, _she_, and _it_. + +[42] Different from _ilk_. + +[43] Guest, ii. 192. + +[44] Or _call-s._ + +[45] _Thou s_a_ngest_, _thou dr_a_nkest_, &c.--For a reason given in the +sequel, these forms are less unexceptionable than _s_u_ngest_, +_dr_u_nkest_, &c. + +[46] Antiquated. + +[47] As the present section is written with the single view of illustrating +the subject, no mention has been made of the forms [Greek: tupo] +(_typ[^o]_), and [Greek: etupon] (_etypon_). + +[48] Obsolete. + +[49] Obsolete. + +[50] Obsolete. + +[51] The forms marked thus^{[51]} are either obsolete or provincial. + +[52] Obsolete. + +[53] Sounded _wun_. + +[54] Obsolete. + +[55] Praeterite, or Perfect. + +[56] Philological Museum, ii. p. 387. + +[57] Vol. ii. p. 203. + +[58] Found rarely; bist being the current form.--Deutsche Grammatik, i. +894. + +[59] _Over, under, after._--These, although derived forms, are not +prepositions of derivation; since it is not by the affix _-er_ that they +are made prepositions. _He went over_, _he went under_, _he went +after_--these sentences prove the forms to be as much adverbial as +prepositional. + +[60] In the first edition of this work I wrote, "Verbs substantive govern +the nominative case." Upon this Mr. Connon, in his "System of English +Grammar," remarks, "The idea of the _nominative_ being _governed_ is +contrary to all received notions of grammar. I consider that the verb _to +be_, in all its parts, acts merely as a connective, and can have no effect +in governing anything." Of Mr. Connon's two reasons, the second is so +sufficient that it ought to have stood alone. The true view of the +so-called verb substantive is that it is no verb at all, but only the +fraction of one. Hence, what I wrote was inaccurate. As to the question of +the impropriety of considering nominative cases fit subjects for government +it is a matter of definition. + +[61] The paper _On certain tenses attributed to the Greek verb_ has already +been quoted. The author, however, of the doctrine on the use of _shall_ and +_will_, is not the author of the doctrine alluded to in the Chapter on the +Tenses. There are, in the same number of the Philological Museum, two +papers under one title: first, the text by a writer who signs himself T. F. +B.; and, next, a comment, by the editor, signed J. C. H. (Julius Charles +Hare). The _usus ethicus_ of the future is due to Archdeacon Hare; the +question being brought in incidentally and by way of illustration. + +The subject of the original paper was the nature of the so-called second +aorists, second futures, and preterite middles. These were held to be no +separate tenses, but irregular forms of the same tense. Undoubtedly this +has long been an opinion amongst scholars; and the writer of the comments +is quite right in stating that it is no novelty to the learned world. I +think, however, that in putting this forward as the chief point in the +original paper, he does the author somewhat less than justice. His merit, +in my eyes, seems to consist, not in showing that real forms of the +_aoristus secundus_, _futurum secundum_, and _praeteritum medium_ were +either rare or equivocal (this having been done before), but in +illustrating his point from the English language; in showing that between +double forms like [Greek: sunelechthen] and [Greek: sunelegen], and double +forms like _hang_ and _hanged_, there was only a difference in degree (if +there was that), not of kind; and, finally, in enouncing the very +legitimate inference, that either we had two preterites, or that the Greeks +had only one. "Now, if the circumstances of the Greek and English, in +regard to these two tenses, are so precisely parallel, a simple and obvious +inquiry arises, Which are in the right, the Greek grammarians or our own? +For either ours must be wrong in not having fitted up for our verb the +framework of a first and second preterite, teaching the pupil to say, 1st +pret. _I finded_, 2d pret. _I found_; 1st pret. _I glided_, 2d pret. _I +glode_: or the others must be so in teaching the learner to imagine two +aorists for [Greek: heurisko], as, aor. 1, [Greek: heuresa], aor. 2, +[Greek: heuron]; or for [Greek: akouo], aor. 1, [Greek: ekousa], aor. 2, +[Greek: ekoon]."--p. 198. + +The inference is, that of the two languages it is the English that is in +the right. Now the following remarks, in the comment, upon this inference +are a step in the wrong direction:--"The comparison, I grant, is perfectly +just; but is it a just inference from that comparison, that we ought to +alter the system of our Greek grammars, which has been drawn up at the cost +of so much learning and thought, for the sake of adapting it to the system, +if system it can be called, of our own grammars, which are seldom +remarkable for anything else than their slovenliness, their ignorance, and +their presumption? Is the higher to be brought down to the level of the +baser? is Apollo to be drest out in a coat and waistcoat? Rather might it +be deemed advisable to remodel the system of our own grammars." + +This, whether right or wrong as a broad assertion, was, in the case in +hand, irrelevant. No _general_ superiority had been claimed for the English +grammars. For all that had been stated in the original paper they might, as +compared with the Greek and Latin, be wrong in ninety-nine cases out of a +hundred. All that was claimed for them was that they were right in the +present instance; just as for a clock that stands may be claimed the credit +of being right once in every twelve hours. That the inference in favour of +altering the _system_ of the Greek grammars is illegitimate is most +undeniably true; but then it is an inference of the critic's not of the +author's. As the illustration in question has always seemed to me of great +value,--although it may easily be less original than I imagine,--I have +gone thus far towards putting it in a proper light. + +Taking up the question where it is left by the two writers in question, we +find that the difficulties of the so-called _second_ tenses in Greek are +met by reducing them to the same tense in different conjugations; and, +according to the current views of grammarians, this is a point gained. Is +it so really? Is it not rather the substitution of one difficulty for +another? A second conjugation is a second mode of expressing the same idea, +and a second tense is no more. Real criticism is as unwilling to multiply +the one as the other. Furthermore, the tendency of English criticism is +towards the very doctrines which the Greek grammarian wishes to get rid of. +_We_ have the difficulty of a second conjugation: but, on the other hand, +instead of four past tenses (an imperfect, perfect, pluperfect, and +aorist), we have only one (the aorist). Now, when we find that good reasons +can be given for supposing that the strong preterite in the Gothic +languages was once a reduplicate perfect, we are at liberty to suppose that +what is now the same tense under two forms, was, originally, different +tenses. Hence, in English, we avoid the difficulty of a second conjugation +by the very same process which we eschew in Greek; viz., the assumption of +a second _tense_. But this we can do, as we have a tense to spare. + +Will any process reconcile this conflict of difficulties? I submit to +scholars the following hypotheses:-- + +1. That the _true_ second future in Greek (_i.e._, the future of verbs with +a liquid as a characteristic) is a variety of the _present_, formed by +accentuating the last syllable; just as _I be['a]t you_=_I will beat you_. + +2. That this accent effects a change on the quantity and nature of the +vowel of the penultimate. + +3. That the second aorist is an _imperfect_ formed from this secondary +present. + +4. That the so-called perfect middle is a similar perfect active. + +[62] Transactions of Philological Society. No. 90, Jan. 25, 1850. + +[63] Notwithstanding the extent to which a relative may take the appearance +of conjunction, there is always one unequivocal method of deciding its true +nature. The relative is always a _part_ of the second proposition. A +conjunction is _no part_ of either. + +[64] Unless another view be taken of the construction, and it be argued +that [Greek: edoke] is, etymologically speaking, no aorist but a perfect. +In form, it is almost as much one tense as another. If it wants the +reduplication of the perfect, it has the perfect characteristic [kappa], to +the exclusion of the aorist [sigma]; and thus far the evidence is equal. +The persons, however, are more aorist than perfect. For one of Mathiae's +aorists ([Greek: metheke]) a still better case might be made, showing it to +be, even in etymology, more perfect than aorist. + + [Greek: Kteinei me chrusou, ton talaiporon, charin] + [Greek: Xenos patroios, kai ktanon es oidm' halos] + [Greek: Methech', hin' autos chruson en domois echei.] + [Greek: Keimai d' ep' aktais.] + + Eur. _Hec._ + +[65] It is almost unnecessary to state that the sentence quoted in the text +is really a beautiful couplet of Withers's poetry _transposed_. It was +advisable to do this, for the sake of guarding against the effect of the +rhyme. To have written, + + What care I how fair she _is_ + If she be not fair to me? + +would have made the grammar seem worse than it really was, by disappointing +the reader of a rhyme. On the other hand, to have written, + + What care I how fair she _were_, + If she were not kind as _fair_? + +would have made the grammar seem better than it really was, by supplying +one. + +[66] In the first edition of the present work I inaccurately stated that +_neither_ should take a plural and _either_ a singular verb; adding that +"in predicating something concerning _neither you nor I_, a negative +assertion is made concerning _both_. In predicating something concerning +_either you or I_, a positive assertion is made concerning _one of two_." +This Mr. Connon (p. 129) has truly stated to be at variance with the +principles laid down by me elsewhere. + +[67] Latin Prose Composition, p. 123. + +[68] Quoted from Guest's English Rhythms. + +[69] To the definition in the text, words like _old_ and _bold_ form no +exception. At the first view it may be objected that in words like _old_ +there is no part preceding the vowel. Compared, however, with _bold_, the +negation of that part constitutes a difference. The same applies to words +like _go_ and _lo_, where the negation of a part following the vowel is a +point of identity. Furthermore, I may observe, that the word _part_ is used +in the singular number. The assertion is not that every individual sound +preceding the vowel must be different, but that the aggregate of them must +be so. Hence, _pray_ and _bray_ (where the _r_ is common to both forms) +form as true a rhyme as _bray_ and _play_, where all the sounds preceding +_a_, differ. + +[70] For _pros['o]pa_. The Greek has been transliterated into English for +the sake of showing the effect of the accents more conveniently. + +[71] For the sake of showing the extent to which the _accentual element_ +must be recognised in the classical metres, I reprint the following paper +On the Doctrine of the Caesura in the Greek senarius, from the Transactions +of the Philological Society, June 23, 1843:-- + +"In respect to the caesura of the Greek tragic senarius, the rules, as laid +down by Porson in the Supplement to his Preface to the Hecuba, and as +recognized, more or less, by the English school of critics, seem capable of +a more general expression, and, at the same time, liable to certain +limitations in regard to fact. This becomes apparent when we investigate +the principle that serves as the foundation to these rules; in other words, +when we exhibit the _rationale_, or doctrine, of the caesura in question. +At this we can arrive by taking cognizance of a second element of metre +beyond that of quantity. + +"It is assumed that the element in metre which goes, in works of different +writers, under the name of ictus metricus, or of arsis, is the same as +accent, _in the sense of that word in English_. It is this that constitutes +the difference between words like _t['y]rant_ and _res['u]me_, or +_s['u]rvey_ and _surv['e]y_; or (to take more convenient examples) between +the word _A['u]gust_, used as the name of a month, and _aug['u]st_, used as +an adjective. Without inquiring how far this coincides with the accent and +accentuation of the classical grammarians, it may be stated that, in the +forthcoming pages, arsis, ictus metricus, and accent (_in the English sense +of the word_), mean one and the same thing. With this view of the arsis, or +ictus, we may ask how far, in each particular foot of the senarius, it +coincides with the quantity. + +_First Foot._--In the first place of a tragic senarius it is a matter of +indifference whether the arsis fall on the first or second syllable; that +is, it is a matter of indifference whether the foot be sounded as +_t['y]rant_ or as _res['u]me_, as _A['u]gust_ or as _aug['u]st_. In the +following lines the words [Greek: heko], [Greek: palai], [Greek: eiper], +[Greek: tinas], may be pronounced either as [Greek: he'ko], [Greek: +pa'lai], [Greek: ei'per], [Greek: ti'nas], or as [Greek: heko'], [Greek: +palai'], [Greek: eiper'], [Greek: tina's], without any detriment to the +character of the line wherein they occur. + + [Greek: He'ko nekron keuthmona kai skotou pulas.] + [Greek: Pa'lai kunegetounta kai metroumenon.] + [Greek: Ei'per dikaios esth' emos ta patrothen.] + [Greek: Ti'nas poth' hedras tasde moi thoazete.] + +or, + + [Greek: Heko' nekron keuthmona kai skotou pulas.] + [Greek: Palai' kunegetounta kai metroumenon.] + [Greek: Eiper' dikaios esth' emos ta patrothen.] + [Greek: Tina's poth' hedras tasde moi thoazete.] + +_Second Foot._--In the second place, it is also a matter of indifference +whether the foot be sounded as _A['u]gust_ or as _aug['u]st_. In the first +of the four lines quoted above we may say either [Greek: ne'kron] or +[Greek: nekro'n], without violating the rhythm of the verse. + +_Third Foot._--In this part of the senarius it is no longer a matter of +indifference whether the foot be sounded as _A['u]gust_ or as _aug['u]st_; +that is, it is no longer a matter of indifference whether the arsis and the +quantity coincide. In the circumstance that the last syllable of the third +foot _must_ be accented (in the English sense of the word), taken along +with a second fact, soon about to be exhibited, lies the doctrine of the +penthimimer and hepthimimer caesuras. + +The proof of the coincidence between the arsis and the quantity in the +third foot is derived partly from _a posteriori_, partly from _a priori_ +evidence. + +1. In the Supplices of Aeschylus, the Persae, and the Bacchae, three dramas +where licences in regard to metre are pre-eminently common, the number of +lines wherein the sixth syllable (_i. e._, the last half of the third foot) +is without an arsis, is at the highest sixteen, at the lowest five; whilst +in the remainder of the extant dramas the proportion is undoubtedly +smaller. + +2. In all lines where the sixth syllable is destitute of ictus, the iambic +character is violated: as + + [Greek: Threken perasa'ntes mogis polloi ponoi.] + [Greek: Duoin gerontoi'n de strategeitai phuge.] + +These are facts which may be verified either by referring to the +tragedians, or by constructing senarii like the lines last quoted. The only +difficulty that occurs arises in determining, in a dead language like the +Greek, the absence or presence of the arsis. In this matter the writer had +satisfied himself of the truth of the two following propositions:--1. That +the accentuation of the grammarians denotes some modification of +pronunciation other than that which constitutes the difference between +_A['u]gust_ and _aug['u]st_; since, if it were not so, the word [Greek: +angelon] would be sounded like _m['e]rrily_, and the word [Greek: angelon] +like _dis['a]ble_; which is improbable, 2. That the arsis lies upon radical +rather than inflectional syllables, and out of two inflectional syllables +upon the first rather than the second; as [Greek: ble'p-o, bleps-a's-a], +not [Greek: blep-o', bleps-as-a']. The evidence upon these points is +derived from the structure of language in general. The _onus probandi_ lies +with the author who presumes an arsis (accent in the English sense) on a +_non_-radical syllable. Doubts, however, as to the pronunciation of certain +words, leave the precise number of lines violating the rule given above +undetermined. It is considered sufficient to show that wherever they occur +the iambic character is violated. + +The circumstance, however, of the last half of the third foot requiring an +arsis, brings us only half way towards the doctrine of the caesura. With +this must be combined a second fact, arising out of the constitution of the +Greek language in respect to its accent. In accordance with the views just +exhibited, the author conceives that no Greek word has an arsis upon the +last syllable, except in the three following cases:-- + +1. Monosyllables, not enclitic; as [Greek: spho'n, pa's, chtho'n, dmo's, +no'n, nu'n], &c. + +2. Circumflex futures; as [Greek: nemo', temo'], &c. + +3. Words abbreviated by apocope; in which case the penultimate is converted +into a final syllable; [Greek: do'm', pheides'th', kentei't', ego'g'], &c. + +Now the fact of a syllable with an arsis being, in Greek, rarely final, +taken along with that of the sixth syllable requiring, in the senarius, an +arsis, gives as a matter of necessity, the circumstance that, in the Greek +drama, the sixth syllable shall occur anywhere rather than at the end of a +word; and this is only another way of saying, that, in a tragic senarius, +the syllable in question shall generally be followed by other syllables in +the same word. All this the author considers as so truly a matter of +necessity, that the objection to his view of the Greek caesura must lie +either against his idea of the nature of the accents, or nowhere; since, +that being admitted, the rest follows of course. + +As the sixth syllable must not be final, it must be followed in the same +word by one syllable, or by more than one. + +1. _The sixth syllable followed by one syllable in the same word._--This is +only another name for the seventh syllable occurring at the end of a word, +and it gives at once the hepthimimer caesura: as + + [Greek: Heko nekron keuthmo'na kai skotou pulas.] + [Greek: Hikteriois kladoi'sin exestemmenoi.] + [Greek: Homou te paiano'n te kai stenagmaton.] + +2. _The sixth syllables followed by two_ (_or more_) _syllables in the same +word_. This is only another name for the eighth (or some syllable after the +eighth) syllable occurring at the end of a word; as + + [Greek: Odme broteion hai'maton me prosgela.] + [Greek: Lamprous dunastas em'prepontas aitheri.] + +Now this arrangement of syllables, taken by itself, gives anything rather +than a hepthimimer; so that if it was at this point that our investigations +terminated, little would be done towards the evolution of the _rationale_ +of the caesura. It will appear, however, that in those cases where the +circumstance of the sixth syllable being followed by two others in the same +words, causes the eighth (or some syllable after the eighth) to be final, +either a penthimimer caesura, or an equivalent, will, with but few +exceptions, be the result. This we may prove by taking the eighth syllable +and counting back from it. What _follows_ this syllable is immaterial: it +is the number of syllables in the same word that _precedes_ it that demands +attention. + +1. _The eighth syllable preceded in the same word by nothing._--This is +equivalent to the seventh syllable at the end of the preceding word: a +state of things which, as noticed above, gives the hepthimimer caesura. + + [Greek: Anerithmon gela'sma pam|metor de ge.] + +2. _The eighth syllable preceded in the same word by one syllable._--This +is equivalent to the sixth syllable at the end of the word preceding; a +state of things which, as noticed above, rarely occurs. When however it +does occur, one of the three conditions under which a final syllable can +take an arsis must accompany it. Each of these conditions requires notice. + +[alpha]). With a non-enclitic _mono_-syllable the result is a penthimimer +caesura; since the syllable preceding a monosyllable is necessarily final. + + [Greek: Heko sebi'zon so'n Klu'tai|mnestra kratos.] + +No remark has been made by critics upon lines constructed in this manner, +since the caesura is a penthimimer, and consequently their rules are +undisturbed. + +[beta]). With _poly_-syllabic circumflex futures constituting the third +foot, there would be a violation of the current rules respecting the +caesura. Notwithstanding this, if the views of the present paper be true, +there would be no violation of the iambic character of the senarius. +Against such a line as + + [Greek: Kago to son nemo' pothei|non aulion] + +there is no argument _a priori_ on the score of the iambic character being +violated; whilst in respect to objections derived from evidence _a +posteriori_, there is sufficient reason for such lines being rare. + +[gamma]). With _poly_-syllables abbreviated by apocope, we have the state +of things which the metrists have recognised under the name of +quasi-caesura; as + + [Greek: Kenteite me pheide'sth' ego | 'tekon Parin.] + +3. _The eighth syllable preceded in the same word by two syllables._--This +is equivalent to the fifth syllable occurring at the end of the word +preceding: a state of things which gives the penthimimer caesura; as + + [Greek: Odme broteion hai' maton | me prosgela.] + [Greek: Lamprous dunastas em'prepon tas aitheri.] + [Greek: Apsuchon eiko pro'sgeloisa somatos.] + +4. _The eighth syllable preceded in the same word by three or more than +three syllables._--This is equivalent to the fourth (or some syllable +preceding the fourth) syllable occurring at the end of the word preceding; +a state of things which would include the third and fourth feet in one and +the same word. This concurrence is denounced in the Supplement to the +Preface to the Hecuba; where, however, the rule, as in the case of the +quasi-caesura, from being based upon merely empirical evidence, requires +limitation. In lines like + + [Greek: Kai talla poll' epei'kasai | dikaion en,] + +or (an imaginary example), + + [Greek: Tois soisin aspide'strophois|in andrasi,] + +there is no violation of the iambic character, and consequently no reason +against similar lines having been written; although from the average +proportion of Greek words like [Greek: epeikasai] and [Greek: +aspidestrophoisin], there is every reason for their being rare. + +After the details just given, the recapitulation is brief. + +1. It was essential to the character of the senarius that the sixth +syllable, or latter half of the third foot, should have an arsis, ictus +metricus, or accent in the English sense. To this condition of the iambic +rhythm the Greek tragedians, either consciously or unconsciously, adhered. + +2. It was the character of the Greek language to admit an arsis on the last +syllable of a word only under circumstances comparatively rare. + +3. These two facts, taken together, caused the sixth syllable of a line to +be anywhere rather than at the end of a word. + +4. If followed by a single syllable in the same word, the result was a +hepthimimer caesura. + +5. If followed by more syllables than one, some syllable in an earlier part +of the line ended the word preceding, and so caused either a penthimimer, a +quasi-caesura, or the occurrence of the third and fourth foot in the same +word. + +6. As these two last-mentioned circumstances were rare, the general +phaenomenon presented in the Greek senarius was the occurrence of either +the penthimimer or hepthimimer. + +7. Respecting these two sorts of caesura, the rules, instead of being +exhibited in detail, may be replaced by the simple assertion that there +should be an arsis on the sixth syllable. From this the rest follows. + +8. Respecting the non-occurrence of the third and fourth feet in the same +word, the assertion may be withdrawn entirely. + +9. Respecting the quasi-caesura, the rules, if not altogether withdrawn, +may be extended to the admission of the last syllable of circumflex futures +(or to any other polysyllables with an equal claim to be considered +accented on the last syllable) in the latter half of the third foot. + +[72] _Sceolon_, _aron_, and a few similar words, are no real exceptions, +being in structure not present tenses but preterites. + +[73] Quarterly Review, No. clxiv. + +[74] Quarterly Review, No. clxiv. + +[75] From the Quarterly Review, No. cx. + +[76] From the Quarterly Review, No. cx. + +[77] Apparently a _lapsus calami_ for _spede_. + +[78] J. M. Kemble, "On Anglo-Saxon Runes," _Archaeologia_, vol. xxviii. + +[79] But not of _Great Britain_. The Lowland Scotch is, probably, more +Danish than any South-British dialect. + +[80] In opposition to the typical Northumbrian. + +[81] Quarterly Review--_ut supra_. + +[82] The subject is a Lincolnshire tradition; the language, also, is +pre-eminently Danish. On the other hand, the modern Lincolnshire dialect is +by no means evidently descended from it. + +[83] For some few details see Phil. Trans., No. 36. + +[84] Transactions of the Philological Society. No. 93. + +[85] Philological Transactions. No. 84. + +[86] Transactions of the Philological Society, No. 92. + +[87] Quarterly Review, vol. xliii. + + * * * * * + + +Changes made against printed original. + +Page xxv. "227. The combination _-pth_": 'combinations' in original. + +Page xxxiv. "465, 466. The Slavonic praeterite": 'paerterite' in original. + +Page xli. "676, 677. Rhyme--its parts": '677, 677' in original. + +Page 3, s. 9. "The south-eastern parts of Scotland": 'south-western' in +original (compare 'south-eastern', 2 sentences earlier). + +Page 6, s. 13(3c). "half a century earlier than the epoch of Hengist": +'earlier that' in original. + +Page 50. s. 94. "certain Anglo-Saxon inflections.": 'Anglo-Saxons' in +original. + +Ibid. "h['e]r, d['e]de, br['e]da, Frisian;": 'Frisian; Fris.' in original. + +Ibid. "ju=y or eo": 'eo' omitted in original. + +Page 71. s. 127. "a population originating in places": 'orginating' in +original. + +Page 112. s. 174. "Smidhum however, is a single": 'Smdhium' in original. + +Page 143. s. 198. "Concerning the consonants as a class": 'vowels' (for +'consonants') in original. + +Page 150. s. 212. Table, first row, Lene Flat: "b": 'v' in original +(compare s. 203). + +Page 158. s. 227. "the th is a (so-called) aspirate": 'the f' in original. + +Ibid. "the second may be accommodated to the first, tupt": 'tuft' in +original. + +Page 160. s. 229. "dh to d": 'th to d' in original. + +Page 161. s. 231. "the v in fever": 'the e' in original. + +Page 194. s. 255. "the statement ... that ... the c is mute": 'the k' in +original. + +Page 202. s. 258. "17. Pe Pi.": '17. Pi Phi.' in original. + +Page 265. s. 315. "se scearpeste sweord": 'sword' in original. + +Page 286. s. 340. "In Anglo-Saxon the termination -ing": 'terminations' in +original. + +Page 300. s. 355. "I ate ... we ate": 'ete' for 'ate' (twice) in original. + +Page 301. Ibid. "swungon, we swung": 'swangon' in original (does not fit +criterion for this table). + +Page 323. s. 382. "accounting for the -s in must": 'in most' in original. + +Page 324. s. 382. "wit, wot, wiss, wist": 'wit, wot, wiss, wsst' in +original. + +Page 356. s. 411. "the word rose prefixed": 'the word tree prefixed' in +original (the same as the contrary case). + +Page 368. s. 426(II). "form another order": 'from another order' in +original. + +Page 398. s. 479. "the words Roman emperor might be wholly ejected": 'the +word' in original. + +Page 411. s. 507. "in the indicative and subjunctive moods": 'is the' in +original. + +Page 434. s. 545. "the analogy between the words there and it": 'these and +it' in original. + +Page 465. s. 581. "will be taken up in p. 475": 's. 475' in original. + +Page 482. s. 606. "a pair of propositions connected by the conjunction": +'prepositions' in original. + +Page 490. s. 617. "4. Let tupsaimi be considered an aorist subjunctive": +'on aorist' in original. + +Page 562. s. 709. "distinguished by their origin only": 'distinguised' in +original. + +Footnote 8. "the Anglo-Saxon adjectives in s. 85": 's. 20' in original. + +Footnote 63. "deciding its true nature": 'rue nature' in original. + + + + + + +End of Project Gutenberg's The English Language, by Robert Gordon Latham + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE *** + +***** This file should be named 34595.txt or 34595.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/3/4/5/9/34595/ + +Produced by Colin Bell, Keith Edkins and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This +file was produced from images generously made available +by The Internet Archive/Canadian 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 +http://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 1.F.3. 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 http://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 +http://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 http://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 http://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 checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is 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: + + http://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. |