The Project Gutenberg eBook of A Handbook of the English Language This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world 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. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook. Title: A Handbook of the English Language Author: R. G. Latham Release date: March 29, 2009 [eBook #28436] Most recently updated: January 4, 2021 Language: English Credits: Produced by Colin Bell, Keith Edkins and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.) *** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A HANDBOOK OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE *** Produced by Colin Bell, Keith Edkins and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.) Transcriber's note: A few typographical errors have been corrected: they are listed at the end of the text. [=a] signifies "a with macron"; [)e] "e with breve"; and so forth. * * * * * A HAND-BOOK OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, FOR THE USE OF STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITIES AND HIGHER CLASSES OF SCHOOLS. BY R. G. LATHAM, M.D., F.R.S., LATE PROFESSOR OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LONDON. NEW-YORK: D. APPLETON & COMPANY, 443 & 445 BROADWAY. M.DCCC.LXIV. * * * * * CONTENTS. * * * * * PART I. GENERAL ETHNOLOGICAL RELATIONS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. CHAPTER I. GERMANIC ORIGIN OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.--DATE. SECTION PAGE 1. English language not British 1 2. Real origin German 1 3. Accredited immigrations and settlements 2 4, 5. Criticism 4, 5 CHAPTER II. GERMANIC ORIGIN OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.--THE GERMANIC AREA OF THE PARTICULAR GERMANS WHO INTRODUCED IT.--EXTRACT FROM BEDA. 6, 7. Jutes, Angles, and Saxons 6 8, 9. Extract from Beda 6, 7 10-13. Criticism 8-11 14, 15. Angles 11, 12 16. Saxons of Beda 12, 13 17. Anglo-Saxon area 13 18, 19. The Frisians 13, 14 20. Anglo-Saxon area 14 CHAPTER III. OF THE DIALECTS OF THE SAXON AREA, AND OF THE SO-CALLED OLD SAXON. 21-29. Old Saxon and Anglo-Saxon 16, 17 CHAPTER IV. AFFINITIES OF THE ENGLISH WITH THE LANGUAGES OF GERMANY AND SCANDINAVIA. 30, 31. Gothic languages 18 32-34. Divisions of the Gothic stock 18 35. Moeso-Gothic 19 36. Old High German 19 37. Low German 19 38. Frisian and Dutch 19 39. Platt-Deutsch 20 40, 41. Comparison 21-23 CHAPTER V. ANALYSIS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.--GERMANIC ELEMENTS.--THE ANGLES. 42. Analysis 24 43-54. Angles--their relations 24-28 55, 56. The Frisians 29, 30 CHAPTER VI. THE CELTIC STOCK OF LANGUAGES AND THEIR RELATIONS TO THE ENGLISH. 57. Branches of the Celtic stock 31 58-60. Structure of Celtic tongues 31-33 61-63. The Picts 33-35 CHAPTER VII. THE ANGLO-NORMAN, AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE CLASSICAL STOCK. 64. The classical languages 36 65-67. Latin branch 36-40 68, 69. Norman French 40, 41 PART II. HISTORY AND ANALYSIS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. CHAPTER I. HISTORICAL AND LOGICAL ELEMENTS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 70. Celtic elements 45 71. Latin of first period 46 72. Anglo-Saxon 47 73. Danish or Norse 47 74. Roman of second period 49 75. Anglo-Norman element 49 76. Indirect Scandinavian elements 50 77. Latin of third period 51 78. Latin of fourth period 51 79. Greek 52 80-82. Tables 53-55 83-90. Miscellaneous elements 55-60 91-94. Hybridism and new words 60-62 95. Historical and logical analysis 63 CHAPTER II. THE RELATION OF THE ENGLISH TO THE ANGLO-SAXON, AND THE STAGES OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 96. Ancient and modern tongues 64 97. Details 65-68 98. Stages of the English language 68 99. Semi-Saxon 69 100-103. _Old_ English, &c. 70-72 104. Present tendencies 73 PART III. SOUNDS, LETTERS, PRONUNCIATION, SPELLING. CHAPTER I. GENERAL NATURE AND CERTAIN PROPERTIES OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS. 105. Spelling and speaking 77 106. Sounds and syllables 79 107. Vowels 79 108. Divisions 80 109. Sharp and flat sounds 80 110. Continuous and explosive 80 111. General statements 81 112. The sound of h 81 CHAPTER II. SYSTEM OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS. 113. Certain foreign sounds 82 114. System of mutes 82 115. Lenes and aspirates 83 116. Fourfold character of mutes 84 117. Y and w 84 118, 119. Diphthongs 84 120. Compound sounds 85 121. Ng 85 122, 123. Broad, slender; long, short; dependent, independent vowels 85, 86 124-126. System of sounds 86, 87 CHAPTER III. OF CERTAIN COMBINATIONS OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS. 127. Sharp and flat mutes 88 128. Unstable combinations 89 129. Effect of y 89 130, 131. Double consonants rare 89 132. True aspirates rare 90 CHAPTER IV. EUPHONY AND THE PERMUTATION OF LETTERS. 133. Euphony 92 134. Permutation 93 CHAPTER V. ON THE FORMATION OF SYLLABLES. 135. Syllabification 95-97 CHAPTER VI. ON QUANTITY. 136. Long and short sounds 98 137. Quantity of vowels--of syllables 98 138. Classical and English measurements 99 CHAPTER VII. ON ACCENT. 139. Place of accents 101 140. Distinctive accents 101 141. Emphasis 102 CHAPTER VIII. ORTHOGRAPHY. 142. Orthoepy 103 143-146. Principle of an alphabet 103-105 147. Violations of it 105 148. Rules 107 149-151. Details of English 107-109 152. Insufficiency 109 153. Inconsistency 109 154. Erroneousness 110 155. Redundancy 110 156. Unsteadiness 110 157. Other defects 111 158. Historical propriety 113 159. Conventional spelling 113 CHAPTER IX. HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE ENGLISH ALPHABET. 160-166. Phoenician, Greek, Roman stages 116-124 166-172. Anglo-Saxon alphabet 124-126 173. Anglo-Norman alphabet 126 174. Extract from _Ormulum_ 127 175. Order of alphabet 128 PART IV. ETYMOLOGY. CHAPTER I. ON THE PROVINCE OF ETYMOLOGY. 176-179. Meaning of term 131-133 CHAPTER II. ON GENDER. 180. _Boy_ and _girl_ 134 181. _Man-servant_ and _maid-servant_ 134 182, 183. Forms like _genitrix_ 135 184. Forms like _domina_ 136 185-189. Genders in English 136, 137 190-192. _The sun in _his_ glory; the moon in _her_ wane_ 138 193. Miscellaneous forms 139-142 CHAPTER III. THE NUMBERS. 194-197. Numbers in English 143, 144 198. Rule 145 199. Remarks 145 200. Addition of -es 146 _Pence_, _alms_, &c. 147 _Mathematics_ 147 201. _Children_ 149 202. Form in -en 150 203. _Men_, _feet_, &c. 150 204. _Brethren_, &c. 150 205. _Houses_ 152 206. _Wives_, &c. 152 CHAPTER IV. ON THE CASES. 207-211. Nature of cases 154-156 212. Accusatives 156 213. Datives 157 214. Genitives 157 215. Instrumental 158 _All the better_ 158, 159 216. Determination of cases 159 217. Analysis of cases 160 218. Form in -s 160 CHAPTER V. THE PERSONAL PRONOUNS. 219, 220. _I_, _we_, _us_, &c. 162 221. _You_ 162 222. _Me_ 163 223-225. Cautions 163, 164 CHAPTER VI. ON THE TRUE REFLECTIVE PRONOUN IN THE GOTHIC LANGUAGES, AND ON ITS ABSENCE IN ENGLISH. 226. How far found in English 165 CHAPTER VII. THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS, ETC. 227. _He_, _she_, _it_ 166 228. _She_ 166 229. _Her_, _him_, _his_, _its_, &c. 167 230. _Theirs_ 167 231. Table 168 232. _These_ 169 233. _Those_ 171 CHAPTER VIII. THE RELATIVE, INTERROGATIVE, AND CERTAIN OTHER PRONOUNS. 234. _Who_, _what_, &c. 173 235. _Same_, &c. 173 236. _Other_, _whether_ 177 CHAPTER IX. ON CERTAIN FORMS IN -ER. 237-239. Idea expressed by -er 179-181 CHAPTER X. THE COMPARATIVE DEGREE. 240. Form in -s 182 241. _Elder_, &c. 183 242. _Rather_ 183 243, 244. Excess of expression 183 245-247. _Better_ 183-185 248. _Worse_ 185 249. _More_ 185 250. _Less_ 185 251-253. _Near_, &c. 186 254. Origin of superlative 186 CHAPTER XI. THE SUPERLATIVE DEGREE. 255, 256. _Former_ 188 257. _Nearest_ 188 258. _Next_ 188 259, 260. _Upmost_, &c. 189, 190 CHAPTER XII. THE CARDINAL NUMBERS. 261. How far undeclined 191 CHAPTER XIII. THE ORDINAL NUMBERS. 262-264. _Seven_, _nine_, _ten_ 192 265, 266. _Thirteen_, _thirty_ 193 CHAPTER XIV. THE ARTICLES. 267. _A_, _an_, _the_ 194 CHAPTER XV. DIMINUTIVES, AUGMENTATIVES, AND PATRONYMICS. 268-270. Diminutives 197-199 271. Augmentatives 200 272. Patronymics 200, 201 CHAPTER XVI. GENTILE FORMS. 273. _Wales_ 202 CHAPTER XVII. ON THE CONNEXION BETWEEN THE NOUN AND VERB, AND ON THE INFLECTION OF THE INFINITIVE MOOD. 274-281. The verb, how far a noun 203-206 CHAPTER XVIII. ON DERIVED VERBS. 282. Divisions of verbs 207 282. Derivation 208, 209 CHAPTER XIX. ON THE PERSONS. 283. Persons in English 210 284, 285. Historical view 211 286. Form in -t 212 287. _Thou spakest_, &c. 212 288. _We loves_ 213 CHAPTER XX. ON THE NUMBERS OF VERBS. 289. Numbers in English 214 290. _Ran_, _run_, &c. 215 CHAPTER XXI. ON MOODS. 291-292. Moods in English 216 CHAPTER XXII. ON TENSES IN GENERAL. 293. _Strike_, _struck_ 217 294-296. [Greek: Etupton], &c. 217, 218 297. Reduplication 219 298. _Weak_ or _strong_ 220 CHAPTER XXIII. THE STRONG TENSES. 299. _Sing_, _sang_, _sung_ 221 300-303. Tables 222-225 CHAPTER XXIV. THE WEAK TENSES. 304. _Stabbed_, &c. 226 305-307. Divisions 227, 228 309. _Bought_, _sought_ 228 309. Forms in -te and -ode 229 310-312. _Bred_, _beat_, &c. 230 313. _Leave_, _left_ 231 314. _Made_, _had_ 231 314. _Would_, _should_, _could_ 231 315. _Aught_ 231 316. _Durst_, _must_, &c. 232 317. _This will do_ 233 318. _Mind_ 234 319. _Yode_ 234 320. _Did_ 234 CHAPTER XXV. ON CONJUGATION. 321, 322. Weak and strong conjugations natural 235-237 CHAPTER XXVI. DEFECTIVENESS AND IRREGULARITY. 323-325. Irregularity 238 326. Vital and obsolete processes 240 327. Processes of necessity, &c. 241 328. Ordinary processes 241 329. Positive 242 330. Normal 242 331. _Could_ 243 332. _Quoth_ 244 333. Real irregular verbs few 244 CHAPTER XXVII. THE IMPERSONAL VERBS. 334, 335. _Me-seems_, _me-listeth_ 246 CHAPTER XXVIII. THE VERB SUBSTANTIVE. 336. Not irregular 247 337. _Was_ 247 338-341. _Be_ 248, 249 342. _An_ 249 343. _Worth_ 250 CHAPTER XXIX. THE PRESENT PARTICIPLE. 344. Forms in -ing 251 345. Forms in -ung 252 CHAPTER XXX. THE PAST PARTICIPLE. 346. Forms in -en 254 347, 348. _Drunken_ 254 349. _Forlorn_ 255 350. Forms in -ed 255 351. The prefix Y 256 CHAPTER XXXI. COMPOSITION. 352-357. Nature of compounds 258-261 358-361. Accent 261-266 362. Obscure compounds 266 363-365. Exceptions 266, 267, 268 366. _Peacock_, _peahen_ 269 367. _Nightingale_ 269 368. Improper compounds 270 369. Decomposites 270 370. Combinations 270, 271 CHAPTER XXXII. ON DERIVATION AND INFLECTION. 371-373. Their nature 272-275 CHAPTER XXXIII. ADVERBS. 374, 375. Their division 276 376-379. Adverbs of deflection 277 380. _Darkling_ 278 CHAPTER XXXIV. ON CERTAIN ADVERBS OF PLACE. 381-384. _Hither_, _thither_, &c 279 385. _Hence_, &c. 280 386. _Yonder_ 280 387. _Anon_ 281 CHAPTER XXXV. ON WHEN, THEN, AND THAN. 388, 389. Their origin 282 CHAPTER XXXVI. PREPOSITIONS AND CONJUNCTIONS. 390. Prepositions 283 391. Conjunctions 283 392. _Yes_, _No_ 283 393. Particles 283 CHAPTER XXXVII. ON THE GRAMMATICAL POSITION OF THE WORDS _mine_ AND _thine_. 394-407. Equivalent to _meus_ and _tuus_, rather than possessive cases 284-290 CHAPTER XXXVIII. ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE WEAK PRÆTERITE. 408. Grimm's view 291 409, 410. Remarks of Dr. Trithen 291-293 PART V. SYNTAX. CHAPTER I. ON SYNTAX IN GENERAL. 411, 412. Syntax 294 413. Personification 294 414. Ellipsis 295 415. Pleonasm 295 416. Zeugma 295 417. _Pros to semainomenon_ 296 418. Apposition 296 419. Collectiveness 297 420. Reduction 297 421. Determination of part of speech 298 422-424. Convertibility 298, 299 425. _The Blacks of Africa_ 299 426. _None of your ifs_ 300 427. Convertible words numerous in English 300 CHAPTER II. SYNTAX OF SUBSTANTIVES. 428. _Rundell and Bridge's_ 301 429. _Right and left_ 301 CHAPTER III. SYNTAX OF ADJECTIVES. 430. Pleonasm 302 431. Collocation 302 432. Government 302 433. _More wise_, _wiser_ 303 434. _The _better_ of the two_ 304 435. Syntax of adjectives simple 304 CHAPTER IV. SYNTAX OF PRONOUNS. 436. Pleonasm 305 437. _Father's_, not _father his_ 305 438. Pleonasm and ellipses allied 306 CHAPTER V. THE TRUE PERSONAL PRONOUNS. 439. _Pronomen reverentiæ_ 307 440. _Dativus ethicus_ 307 441. Reflected pronoun 307 442. Reflected neuters 308 443. Equivocal reflective 308 CHAPTER VI. ON THE SYNTAX OF THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS, AND THE PRONOUNS OF THE THIRD PERSON. 444, 445. _His_ and _its_ 310, 311 CHAPTER VII. ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORD _self_. 446, 447. _Myself_, _himself_, &c. 312, 313 CHAPTER VIII. ON THE POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 448-451. _My_ and _mine_ 314-316 CHAPTER IX. THE RELATIVE PRONOUNS. 452-456. Their concord 317, 318 457. Ellipsis 318 458. Equivocal antecedent 319 CHAPTER X. ON THE INTERROGATIVE PRONOUN. 459, 460. Direct and oblique questions 320 CHAPTER XI. THE RECIPROCAL PRONOUNS. 461, 462. Their construction 322, 323 CHAPTER XII. THE INDETERMINATE PRONOUNS. 463-466. Use of _it_ 324, 325 467, 468. Use of _them_ 325 CHAPTER XX. ON THE TENSES. 486. Present 342 486, 487. Preterite 342 CHAPTER XXI. SYNTAX OF THE PERSONS OF VERBS. 488, 489. Their concord 344 CHAPTER XXII. ON THE VOICES OF VERBS. 490. _Hight_ 345 CHAPTER XXIII. ON THE AUXILIARY VERBS. 491. Their classification 346-348 492. _I have ridden_ 348 493. _I am to speak_ 351 494. _I am to blame_ 351 495. _I am beaten_ 351 CHAPTER XXIV. OF ADVERBS. 496, 497. Their syntax simple 353 498. Termination -ly 354 499. _To walk and ride_ 354 500. _From whence_, &c. 354, 355 CHAPTER XXV. ON PREPOSITIONS. 501. _Climb up a tree_ 356 502. _Part of the body_ 356 CHAPTER XXVI. ON CONJUNCTIONS. 503, 504. Their nature 357-359 505. Their government 359 506-511. The subjunctive mood 359-364 512. Use of _that_ 364 513. Succession of tenses 364 514. Disjunctives 365 CHAPTER XXVII. THE SYNTAX OF THE NEGATIVE. 515. Its place 366 516. Its distribution 366 517. Two negatives 367 518. Questions of appeal 367 CHAPTER XXVIII. ON THE CASE ABSOLUTE. 519. Its participial character 369 PART VI. PROSODY. 520. Derivation of the word 371 521, 522. Importance of accent 371 523-526. Measures 372, 373 527. Metrical notation 374 528-535. Rhyme 374-377 536. Blank verse 377 537, 538. Last syllable indifferent 378 539, 540. Names of common English metres 379-384 PART VII. DIALECTS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 541. Saxons and Angles 385 542-544. Dialects not coincident 385, 386 545, 546. Traces of the Danes 386, 387 547 Mercian origin of the written English 387 NOTES 393 * * * * * AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. * * * * * PART I. GENERAL ETHNOLOGICAL RELATIONS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. * * * * * CHAPTER I. GERMANIC ORIGIN OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.--DATE. § 1. The first point to be remembered in the history of the English language, is that it was not the primitive and original tongue of any of the British Islands, nor yet of any portion of them. Indeed, of the _whole_ of Great Britain it is not the language at the present moment. Welsh is spoken in Wales, Manks in the Isle of Man, and Scotch Gaelic in the Highlands of Scotland; besides which there is the Irish Gaelic in Ireland. § 2. The next point to be considered is the real origin and the real affinities of the English language. Its _real_ origin is on the continent of Europe, and its _real_ affinities are with certain languages there spoken. To speak more specifically, the native country of the English language is _Germany_; and the _Germanic_ languages are those that are the most closely connected with our own. In Germany, languages and dialects allied to each other and allied to the mother-tongue of the English have been spoken from times anterior to history; and these, for most purposes of philology, may be considered as the aboriginal languages and dialects of that country. § 3. _Accredited details of the different immigrations from Germany into Britain._--Until lately the details of the different Germanic invasions of England, both in respect to the particular tribes by which they were made, and the order in which they succeeded each other, were received with but little doubt, and as little criticism. Respecting the tribes by which they were made, the current opinion was, that they were chiefly, if not exclusively, those of the Jutes, the Saxons, and the Angles. The particular chieftains that headed each descent were also supposed to be known, as well as the different localities upon which they descended.[1] These were as follows:-- _First settlement of invaders from Germany._--The account of this gives us A.D. 449 for the first permanent Germanic tribes settled in Britain. Ebbsfleet, in the Isle of Thanet, was the spot where they landed; and the particular name that these tribes gave themselves was that of _Jutes_. Their leaders were Hengist and Horsa. Six years after their landing they had established the kingdom of Kent; so that the county of Kent was the first district where the original British was superseded by the mother-tongue of the present English, introduced from Germany. _Second settlement of invaders from Germany._--A.D. 477 invaders from Northern Germany made the second permanent settlement in Britain. The coast of Sussex was the spot whereon they landed. The particular name that these tribes gave themselves was that of _Saxons_. Their leader was Ella. They established the kingdom of the South Saxons (Sussex or Suð-Seaxe); so that the county of Sussex was the second district where the original British was superseded by the mother-tongue of the present English, introduced from Germany. _Third settlement of invaders from Germany._--A.D. 495 invaders from Northern Germany made the third permanent settlement in Britain. The coast of Hampshire was the spot whereon they landed. Like the invaders last mentioned, these tribes were Saxons. Their leader was Cerdic. They established the kingdom of the West Saxons (Wessex or West-Seaxe); so that the county of Hants was the third district where the original British was superseded by the mother-tongue of the present English, introduced from Germany. _Fourth settlement of invaders from Germany._--A.D. 530, certain Saxons landed in Essex, so that the county of Essex [East-Seaxe] was the fourth district where the original British was superseded by the mother-tongue of the present English, introduced from Northern Germany. _Fifth settlement of invaders from Germany._--These were _Angles_ in Norfolk and Suffolk. The precise date of this settlement is not known. The fifth district where the original British was superseded by the mother-tongue of the present English was the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk; the particular dialect introduced being that of the _Angles_. _Sixth settlement of invaders from Germany._--A.D. 547 invaders from Northern Germany made the sixth permanent settlement in Britain. The southeastern counties of Scotland, between the rivers Tweed and Forth, were the districts where they landed. They were of the tribe of the Angles, and their leader was Ida. The south-eastern parts of Scotland constituted the sixth district where the original British was superseded by the mother-tongue of the present English, introduced from Northern Germany, § 4. It would be satisfactory if these details rested upon contemporary evidence. This, however, is far from being the case. 1. _The evidence to the details just given, is not historical, but traditional._--a. Beda,[2] from whom it is chiefly taken, wrote nearly 300 years after the supposed event, i.e., the landing of Hengist and Horsa, in A.D. 449. b. The nearest approach to a contemporary author is Gildas,[3] and _he_ wrote full 100 years after it. 2. _The account of Hengist's and Horsa's landing, has elements which are fictional rather than historical_--a. Thus "when we find Hengist and Horsa approaching the coasts of Kent in three keels, and Ælli effecting a landing in Sussex with the same number, we are reminded of the Gothic tradition which carries a migration of Ostrogoths,[4] Visigoths, and Gepidæ, also in three vessels, to the mouth of the Vistula."--Kemble, "Saxons in England." b. The murder of the British chieftains by Hengist is told _totidem verbis_, by Widukind[5] and others, of the Old Saxons in Thuringia. c. Geoffry of Monmouth[6] relates also, how "Hengist obtained from the Britons as much land as could be enclosed by an ox-hide; then, cutting the hide into thongs, enclosed a much larger space than the granters intended, on which he erected Thong Castle--a tale too familiar to need illustration, and which runs throughout the mythus of many nations. Among the Old Saxons, the tradition is in reality the same, though recorded with a slight variety of detail. In their story, a lapfull of earth is purchased at a dear rate from a Thuringian; the companions of the Saxon jeer him for his imprudent bargain; but he sows the purchased earth upon a large space of ground, which he claims, and, by the aid of his comrades, ultimately wrests it from the Thuringians."--Kemble, "Saxons in England." 3. _There is direct evidence in favour of their having been German tribes in England anterior to_ A.D. 447.--a. At the close of the Marcomannic war,[7] Marcus Antoninus transplanted a number of Germans into Britain. b. Alemannic auxiliaries served along with Roman legions under Valentinian.[8] c. _The Notitia utriusque Imperii_,[9] of which the latest date is half a century earlier than the epoch of Hengist, mentions, as an officer of state, the _Comes littoris Saxonici per Britannias_; his government extending along the coast from Portsmouth to the Wash. § 5. _Inference._--As it is nearly certain, that 449 A.D. is _not_ the date of the first introduction of German tribes into Britain, we must consider that the displacement of the original British began at an _earlier_ period than the one usually admitted, and, consequently, that it was more _gradual_ than is usually supposed. Perhaps, if we substitute the middle of the _fourth_, instead of the middle of the _fifth_ century, as the epoch of the Germanic immigrations into Britain, we shall not be far from the truth. * * * * * CHAPTER II. GERMANIC ORIGIN OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.--THE GERMANIC AREA OF THE PARTICULAR GERMANS WHO INTRODUCED IT.--EXTRACT FROM BEDA. § 6. Out of the numerous tribes and nations of Germany, _three_ have been more especially mentioned as the chief, if not the exclusive, sources of the present English population of Great Britain. These are the _Jutes_, the _Saxons_, and the _Angles_. § 7. Now, it is by no means certain that this was the case. On the contrary, good reasons can be given for believing that the Angles and Saxons were the same people, and that no such nation as the _Jutes_ ever left Germany to settle in Great Britain. § 8. The chief authority for the division of the German invaders into the three nations just mentioned is Beda; and the chief text is the following extract from his "Ecclesiastical History." It requires particular attention, and will form the basis of much criticism, and frequently be referred to. "Advenerunt autem de tribus Germaniæ populis fortioribus, id est Saxonibus, Anglis, Jutis. De Jutarum origine sunt Cantuarii, et Victuarii, hoc est ea gens quæ Vectam tenet insulam et ea quæ usque hodie in provincia Occidentalium Saxonum Jutarum natio nominatur, posita contra ipsam insulam Vectam. De Saxonibus, id est, ea regione quæ nunc Antiquorum Saxonum cognominatur, venere Orientales Saxones, Meridiani Saxones, Occidui Saxones. Porro de Anglis hoc est de illa patria quæ Angulus dicitur, et ab illo tempore usque hodie manere desertus inter provincias Jutarum et Saxonum perhibetur, Orientales Angli, Mediterranei Angli, Merci, tota Northanhymbrorum progenies, id est illarum gentium quæ ad Boream Humbri fluminis inhabitant, cæterique Anglorum populi sunt orti"--"Historia Ecclesiastica," i. 15. § 9. This was written about A.D. 731, 131 years after the introduction of Christianity, and nearly 300 after the supposed landing of Hengist and Horsa in A.D. 449. It is the first passage which contains the names of either the _Angles_ or the _Jutes_. Gildas, who wrote more than 150 years earlier, mentions only the _Saxons_--"ferocissimi illi nefandi nominis _Saxones_." It is, also, the passage which all subsequent writers have either translated or adopted. Thus it re-appears in Alfred, and again in the Saxon Chronicle.[10] "Of Jotum comon Cantware and Wihtware, þæt is seo mæiað þe nú eardaþ on Wiht, and þæt cynn on West-Sexum ðe man gyt hæt Iútnacyun. Of Eald-Seaxum comon Eást-Seaxan, and Suð-Seaxan and West-Seaxan. Of Angle comon (se á siððan stód westig betwix Iútum and Seaxum) Eást-Engle, Middel-Angle, Mearce, and ealle Norðymbra." 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. § 10. A portion of these extracts will now be submitted to criticism; that portion being the statement concerning the _Jutes_. The words _usque hodie--Jutarum natio nominatur_ constitute contemporary and unexceptionable evidence to the existence of a people with a name like that of the _Jutes_ in the time of Beda--or A.D. 731. The exact name is not so certain. The term _Jutnacyn_ from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is in favour of the notion that it began with the sounds of j and u, in other words that it was _Jut_. But the term _Geatum_, which we find in Alfred, favours the form in g followed by ea. Thirdly, the forms _Wihtware_, and _Wihttan_, suggest the likelihood of the name being _Wiht_. Lastly, there is a passage in Asserius[11] which gives us the form _Gwith_--"Mater" (of Alfred the Great) "quoque ejusdem Osburgh nominabatur, religiosa nimium foemina, nobilis ingenio, nobilis et genere; quæ erat filia Oslac famosi pincernæ Æthelwulf regis; qui Oslac Gothus erat natione, ortus enim erat de Gothis et Jutis; de semine scilicet Stuf et Wihtgur, duorum fratrum et etiam comitum, qui acceptâ potestate Vectis insulæ ab avunculo suo Cerdic rege et Cynric filio suo, consobrino eorum, paucos Britones ejusdem insulæ accolas, quos in eâ invenire potuerant, in loco qui dicitur, _Gwithgaraburgh_ occiderunt, cæteri enim accolæ ejusdem insulæ ante sunt occisi aut exules aufugerant."--Asserius, "De Gestis Alfredi Regis." Now, _Gwith-gara-burgh_ means the _burg_ or _town of_ the _With-ware_;[12] these being, undoubtedly, no Germans at all, but the native Britons of the Isle of Wight (Vectis), whose designation in Latin would be _Vecticolæ_ or _Vectienses_. This being the case, how can they be descended from German or Danish _Jutes_? and how can we reconcile the statement of Beda with that of Asser? § 11. The answer to this will be given after another fact has been considered. Precisely the same confusion between the sounds of w, j, g, io, eæ, u, and i, which occurs with the so-called _Jutes_ of the Isle of Wight, occurs with the Jutlanders of the peninsula of Jutland. The common forms are _Jutland_, _Jute_, _Jutones_, and _Jutenses_, but they are not the only ones. In A.D. 952, we find "Dania cismarina quam _Vitland_ incolæ appellant."--"Annales Saxonici."[13] § 12. Putting these facts together I adopt the evidence of Asser as to the _Gwithware_ being British, and consider them as simple _Vecti-colæ_, or inhabitants of the Isle of _Wight_. They are also the _Vectuarii_ of Beda, the _Wihtware_ of the Saxon Chronicle, and the _Wihtsætan_ of Alfred. The Jutes of Hampshire--i.e., the "Jutarum natio--posita contra ipsam insulam Vectam," and the _Jutnacyn_, I consider to have been the same; except that they had left the Isle of Wight to settle on the opposite coast; probably flying before their German conquerors, in which case they would be the _exules_ of Asser. The statement of Beda, so opposed to that of Asser, I explain by supposing that it arose out of an inaccurate inference drawn from the similarity of the names of the Isle of Wight and the peninsula of Jutland, since we have seen that in both cases, there was a similar confusion between the syllables Jut- and Vit-. This is an error into which even a careful writer might fall. That Beda had no authentic historical accounts of the conquest of Britain, we know from his own statements in the Preface to his Ecclesiastical History,[14] and that he partially tried to make up for the want of them by inference is exceedingly likely. If so, what would be more natural than for him to conclude that Jutes as well as Angles helped to subdue the country. The fact itself was probable; besides which he saw at one and the same time, in England _Vitæ_ (called also _Jutæ_), in immediate contact with _Saxons_,[26] and on the continent _Jutæ_ (called also _Vitæ_) in the neighborhood of Angles[27] and Saxons. Is it surprising that he should connect them? § 13. If the inhabitants of the Isle of Wight were really _Jutes_ from _Jutland_, it is strange that there should be no traces of the difference which existed, then as now, between them and the proper Anglo-Saxons--a difference which was neither inconsiderable nor of a fleeting nature. The present Jutlanders are not Germans but Danes, and the Jutes of the time of Beda were most probably the same. Those of the 11th century were _certainly_ so, "Primi ad ostium Baltici Sinus in australi ripa versus nos _Dani, quos Juthas appellant_, usque ad Sliam lacum habitant." Adamus Bremensis,[15] "De Situ Daniæ" c. 221. Also, "Et prima pars Daniæ, quæ Jutland dicitur, ad Egdoram[28] in Boream longitudine pretenditur ... in eum angulum qui Windila dicitur, ubi Jutland finem habet," c. 208. At the time of Beda they must, according to the received traditions, have been nearly 300 years in possession of the Isle of Wight, a locality as favourable for the preservation of their peculiar manners and customs as any in Great Britain, and a locality wherein we have no evidence of their ever having been disturbed. Nevertheless, neither trace nor shadow of a trace, either in early or modern times, has ever been discovered of their separate nationality and language; a fact which stands in remarkable contrast with the very numerous traces which the Danes of the 9th and 10th century left behind them as evidence of their occupancy. § 14. The words _England_ and _English_ are derived from the _Angles_ of Beda. The words _Sussex_, _Essex_, _Middlesex_ and _Wessex_, from his _Saxons_. No objection lies against this; indeed to deny that populations called _Angle_ and _Saxon_ occupied _England_ and spoke the _Anglo-Saxon_ language would display an unnecessary and unhealthy scepticism. The real question concerning these two words consists in the relation which the populations to which they were applied bore to each other. And this question is a difficult one. Did the Angles speak one language, whilst the Saxons spoke another? or did they both speak dialects of the same tongue? Were these dialects slightly or widely different? Can we find traces of the difference in any of the present provincial dialects? Are the idioms of one country of Angle, whilst those of another are of Saxon origin? Was the Angle more like the Danish language, whilst the Saxon approached the Dutch? None of these questions can be answered at present. They have, however, been asked for the sake of exhibiting the nature of the subject. § 15. The extract from Beda requires further remarks. _The Angles of Beda._--The statement of Beda respecting the Angles, like his statement concerning the Jutes, reappears in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and in Alfred. Ethelweard[16] also adopts it:--"_Anglia vetus_ sita est inter Saxones et Giotos, habens oppidum capitale quod sermone Saxonico _Sleswic_ nuncupatur, secundum vero Danos _Hathaby_." Nevertheless, it is exceptionable and unsatisfactory; and like the previous one, in all probability, an incorrect inference founded upon the misinterpretation of a name. In the eighth century there _was_, and at the present moment there _is_, a portion of the duchy of Sleswick called _Anglen_ or _the corner_. It is really what its name denotes, a triangle of irregular shape, formed by the Slie, the firth of Flensborg, and a line drawn from Flensborg to Sleswick. It is just as Danish as the rest of the peninsula, and cannot be shown to have been occupied by a Germanic population at all. Its area is less than that of the county of Rutland, and by no means likely to have supplied such a population as that of the Angles of England. The fact of its being a desert at the time of Beda is credible; since it formed a sort of _March_ or _Debatable Ground_ between the Saxons and Slavonians of Holstein, and the Danes of Jutland. Now if we suppose that the real Angles of Germany were either so reduced in numbers as to have become an obscure tribe, or so incorporated with other populations as to have lost their independent existence, we can easily see how the similarity of name, combined with the geographical contiguity of Anglen to the Saxon frontier, might mislead even so good a writer as Beda, into the notion that he had found the country of the _Angles_ in the _Angulus_ (Anglen) of Sleswick. The true _Angles_ were the descendants of the _Angli_ of Tacitus. Who these were will be investigated in §§ 47-54. § 16. _The Saxons of Beda._--The Saxons of Beda reached from the country of the Old Saxons[29] on the Lippe, in Westphalia, to that of the Nordalbingian[30] Saxons between the Elbe and Eyder; and nearly, but not quite, coincided with the present countries of Hanover, Oldenburg, Westphalia, and part of Holstein. This we may call the _Saxon_, or (as reasons will be given for considering that it nearly coincided with the country of the Angles) the _Anglo-Saxon_ area. § 17. _River-system and sea-board of the Anglo-Saxon area._--As the invasion of England took place by sea, we must expect to find in the invaders a maritime population. This leads to the consideration of the physical character of that part of Germany which they occupied. And here comes a remarkable and unexpected fact. The line of coast between the Rhine and Elbe, the line which in reasoning _a priori_, we should fix upon as the most likely tract for the bold seamen who wrested so large an island as Great Britain from its original occupants (changing it from _Britain_ to _England_), to have proceeded from, is _not_ the country of the Anglo-Saxons. On the contrary, it is the country of a similar but different section of the Germanic population, a section which has not received the attention from the English historian which it deserves. The country in question is the area of-- § 18. _The Frisians._--At the present moment the language of the Dutch province of Friesland is materially different from that of the other parts of the kingdom of Holland. In other words it is not Dutch. Neither is it German--although, of course, it resembles both languages. On the other hand, it is more like the English than any other language or dialect in Germany is. It is a language of considerable antiquity, and although at present it is spoken by the country-people only, it possesses a considerable literature. There is the _Middle_ Frisian of Gysbert Japicx,[17] and the _Old_ Frisian of the Frisian Laws.[18] The older the specimen of the Frisian language the more closely does it show its affinity to the English; hence the earliest Frisian and the Anglo-Saxon are exceedingly alike. Nevertheless they differ. § 19. The Frisian was once spoken over a far greater area than at present. It was the original language of almost all Holland. It was the language of East Friesland to a late period. It was, probably, the language of the ancient Chauci. At the present time (besides Friesland) it survives in Heligoland, in the islands between the Ems and Weser, in part of Sleswick, and in a few localities in Oldenburg and Westphalia. Hence it is probable that the original Frisian, extending to an uncertain and irregular distance inland, lay between the Saxons and the sea, and stretched from the Zuyder Zee to the Elbe; a fact which would leave to the latter nation the lower Elbe and the Weser as their water-system: the extent to which they were in direct contact with the ocean being less than we are prepared to expect from their subsequent history. On the other hand the _a priori_ probabilities of there being Frisians as well as Anglo-Saxons amongst the conquerors of Great Britain are considerable.--See §§ 55, 56. § 20. The Anglo-Saxon area coincided-- 1. _Politically._--With the kingdom of Hanover, the duchy of Oldenburg, and parts of Westphalia and Holstein. 2. _Physically._--With the basin of the Weser. It was _certainly_ from the Anglo-Saxon, and _probably_ from a part of the Frisian area that Great Britain was first invaded. This is as much as it is safe to say at present. The preceding chapter investigated the _date_ of the Germanic migration into Britain; the present has determined the _area_ from which it went forth. * * * * * CHAPTER III. OF THE DIALECTS OF THE SAXON AREA, AND OF THE SO-CALLED OLD SAXON. § 21. The area occupied by the Saxons of Germany has been investigated; and it now remains to ask, how far the language of the occupants was absolutely identical throughout, or how far it fell into dialects or sub-dialects. There were at least _two_ divisions of the Saxon; (1st) the Saxon of which the extant specimens are of English origin, and (2nd), the Saxon of which the extant specimens are of Continental origin. We will call these at present the Saxon of England, and the Saxon of the Continent. § 22. Respecting the Saxon of England and the Saxon of the Continent, there is good reason for believing that the _first_ was spoken in the _northern_, the _second_ in the _southern_ portion of the Saxon area, i.e., the one in Hanover and the other in Westphalia, the probable boundaries between them being the line of highlands between Osnaburg and Paderborn. § 23. Respecting the Saxon of England and the Saxon of the Continent, there is good reason for believing that, whilst the _former_ was the mother-tongue of the Angles and the conquerors of England, the _latter_ was that of the Cherusci of Arminius, the conquerors and the annihilators of the legions of Varus.[19] § 24. Respecting the Saxon of England and the Saxon of the Continent, it is a fact that, whilst we have a full literature in the former, we have but fragmentary specimens of the latter--these being chiefly the following: (1) the Heliand,[20] (2) Hildubrand and Hathubrant,[21] (3) the Carolinian Psalms.[22] § 25. The preceding points have been predicated respecting the difference between the two ascertained Saxon dialects, for the sake of preparing the reader for the names by which they are known. THE SAXON OF THE CONTINENT THE SAXON OF ENGLAND MAY BE CALLED MAY BE CALLED 1. Continental Saxon. Insular Saxon. 2. German Saxon. English Saxon. 3. Westphalian Saxon. Hanoverian Saxon. 4. South Saxon. North Saxon. 5. Cheruscan Saxon. Angle Saxon. 6. Saxon of the Heliand. Saxon of Beowulf.[23] § 26. The Saxon of England _is_ called Anglo-Saxon; a term against which no exception can be raised. § 27. The Saxon of the Continent _used_ to be called _Dano_-Saxon, and _is_ called _Old_ Saxon. § 28. _Why called Dano-Saxon._--When the poem called _Heliand_ was first discovered in an English library, the difference in language between it and the common Anglo-Saxon composition was accounted for by the assumption of a _Danish_ intermixture. § 29. _Why called _Old_ Saxon._ When the Continental origin of the _Heliand_ was recognised, the language was called _Old_ Saxon, because it represented the Saxon of the mother-country, the natives of which were called _Old_ Saxons by the _Anglo_-Saxons themselves. Still the term is exceptionable; as the Saxon of the Heliand is probably a _sister_-dialect of the _Anglo_-Saxon, rather than the _Anglo_-Saxon itself in a Continental locality. Exceptionable, however, as it is, it will be employed. * * * * * CHAPTER IV. AFFINITIES OF THE ENGLISH WITH THE LANGUAGES OF GERMANY AND SCANDINAVIA. § 30. Over and above those languages of Germany and Holland which were akin to the dialects of the Anglo-Saxons, cognate languages were spoken in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, and the Feroe isles, i.e., in Scandinavia. § 31. The general collective designation for the Germanic tongues of Germany and Holland, and for the Scandinavian languages of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, and the Feroe Isles, is taken from the name of those German tribes who, during the decline of the Roman Empire, were best known to the Romans as the _Goths_; the term _Gothic_ for the Scandinavian and Germanic languages, collectively, being both current and convenient. § 32. Of this great _stock_ of languages the Scandinavian is one _branch_; the Germanic, called also Teutonic, another. § 33. The Scandinavian branch of the Gothic stock comprehends, 1. The dialects of Scandinavia Proper, i.e., of Norway and Sweden; 2. of the Danish isles and Jutland; 3. of Iceland; 4. of the Feroe Isles. § 34. The Teutonic branch falls into three divisions:-- 1. The Moeso-Gothic. 2. The High Germanic. 3. The Low Germanic. § 35. It is in the Moeso-Gothic that the most ancient specimen of any Gothic tongue has been preserved. It is also the Moeso-Gothic that was spoken by the conquerors of ancient Rome; by the subjects of Hermanric, Alaric, Theodoric, Euric, Athanaric, and Totila. In the reign of Valens, when pressed by intestine wars, and by the movements of the Huns, the Goths were assisted by that emperor, and settled in the Roman province of Moesia. Furthermore, they were converted to Christianity; and the Bible was translated into their language by their Bishop Ulphilas. Fragments of this translation, chiefly from the Gospels, have come down to the present time; and the Bible translation of the Arian Bishop Ulphilas, in the language of the Goths of Moesia, during the reign of Valens, exhibits the earliest sample of any Gothic tongue. § 36. The Old High German, called also Francic[24] and Alemannic,[25] was spoken in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries, in Suabia, Bavaria, and Franconia. The Middle High German ranges from the thirteenth century to the Reformation. § 37. The low Germanic division, to which the Anglo-Saxon belongs, is currently said to comprise six languages, or rather four languages in different stages. I. II.--The Anglo-Saxon and Modern English. III. The Old Saxon. IV. V.--The Old Frisian and Modern Dutch. VI.--The Platt-Deutsch, or Low German. § 38. _The Frisian and Dutch._--It is a current statement that the Old Frisian bears the same relation to the Modern Dutch of Holland that the Anglo-Saxon does to the English. The truer view of the question is as follows:-- 1. That a single language, spoken in two dialects, was originally common to both Holland and Friesland. 2. That from the northern of these dialects we have the Modern Frisian of Friesland. 3. From the southern, the Modern Dutch of Holland. The reason of this refinement is as follows:-- The Modern Dutch has certain grammatical forms _older_ than those of the old Frisian; e.g., the Dutch infinitives and the Dutch weak substantives, in their oblique cases, end in -en; those of the Old Frisian in -a: the form in -en being the older. The true Frisian is spoken in few and isolated localities. There is-- 1. The Frisian of the Dutch state called Friesland. 2. The Frisian of the parish of Saterland, in Westphalia. 3. The Frisian of Heligoland. 4. The North Frisian, spoken in a few villages of Sleswick. One of the characters of the North Frisian is the possession of a dual number. In respect to its stages, we have the Old Frisian of the Asega-bog, the Middle Frisian of Gysbert Japicx,[31] and the Modern Frisian of the present Frieslanders, Westphalians, and Heligolanders. § 39. _The Low German and Platt-Deutsch._--The words _Low-German_ are not only lax in their application, but they are _equivocal_; since the term has two meanings, a _general_ meaning when it signifies a division of the Germanic languages, comprising English, Dutch, Anglo-Saxon, Old Saxon, and Frisian, and a limited one when it means the particular dialects of the Ems, the Weser, and the Elbe. To avoid this the dialects in question are conveniently called by their continental name of _Platt-Deutsch_, just as in England we say _Broad_ Scotch. § 40. The most characteristic difference between the Saxon and Icelandic (indeed between the Teutonic and Scandinavian tongues) lies in the peculiar position of the definite article in the latter. In Saxon, the article corresponding with the modern word _the_, is _þæt_, _se_, _seó_, 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 _þæt_, _se_, _seó_, is _hitt_, _hinn_, _hin_: from this the h is ejected, so that, instead of the regular inflection (a), we have the forms (b). a. _Neut._ _Masc._ _Fem._ _Sing. Nom._ Hitt Hinn Hin. _Acc._ Hitt Hinn Hina. _Dat._ Hinu Hinum Hinni. _Gen._ Hins Hins Hinnar. _Plur. Nom._ Hin Hinir Hinar. _Acc._ Hin Hina Hinar. _Dat._ Hinum Hinum Hinum. _Gen._ Hinna Hinna Hinna. b. _Sing. Nom._ -it -inn -in. _Acc._ -it -inn -ina (-na). _Dat._ -nu -num -inni (-nni). _Gen._ -ins -ins -innar (-nnar). _Plur. Nom._ -in -nir -nar. _Acc._ -in -na -nar. _Dat._ -num -num -num. _Gen._ -nna -nna -nna. Whence, as an affix, in composition, _Neut._ _Masc._ _Fem._ _Sing. Nom._ Augat Boginn Túngan. _Acc._ Augat Boginn Túnguna. _Dat._ Auganu Boganum Túngunni. _Gen._ Augans Bogans Túngunnar. _Plur. Nom._ Augun Bogarnir Túngurnar. _Acc._ Augun Bogana Túngurnar. _Dat._ Augunum Bogunum Túngunum. _Gen._ Augnanna Boganna Túngnanna. In the Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish this peculiarity in the position of the definite article is preserved. Its origin, however, is concealed; and an accidental identity with the indefinite article has led to false notions respecting its nature. In the languages in point the i is changed into e, so that what in Icelandic is it and in, is in Danish et and en. _En_, however, as a separate word, is the numeral _one_, and also the indefinite article _a_; whilst in the neuter gender it is _et_--en sol, _a sun_; et bord, _a table_: solon, _the sun_; bordet, _the table_. From modern forms like those just quoted, it has been imagined that the definite is merely the indefinite article transposed. This it is not. To apply an expression of Mr. Cobbet's, _en_ = _a_, and -en = _the_, are _the same combination of letters, but not the same word_. § 41. Another characteristic of the Scandinavian language is the possession of a _passive_ form, or a _passive_ voice, ending in -st:--_ek_, _þu_, _hann brennist_ = _I am_, _thou art_, _he is burnt_; _ver brennumst_ = _we are burnt_; _þér brennizt_ = _ye are burnt_; _þeir brennast_ = _they are burnt_. Past tense, _ek_, _þu_, _hann brendist_; _ver brendumst_, _þér brenduzt_, _þeir brendust_. Imperat.: _brenstu_ = _be thou burnt_. Infinit.: _brennast_ = _to be burnt_. In the modern Danish and Swedish, the passive is still preserved, but without the final t. In the _older_ stages of Icelandic, on the other hand, the termination was not -st but -sc; which -sc grew out of the reflective pronoun _sik_. With these phenomena the Scandinavian languages give us the evolution and development of a passive voice; wherein we have the following series of changes:--1. the reflective pronoun coalesces with the verb, whilst the sense changes from that of a reflective to that of a middle verb; 2. the c changes to t, whilst the middle sense passes into a passive one; 3. t is dropped from the end of the word, and the expression that was once reflective then becomes strictly passive. Now the Saxons have no passive voice at all. That they should have one _originating_ like that of the Scandinavians was impossible, inasmuch as they had no reflective pronoun, and, consequently, nothing to evolve it from. * * * * * CHAPTER V. ANALYSIS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.--GERMANIC ELEMENTS.--THE ANGLES. § 42. The language of England has been formed out of three elements. a. Elements referable to the original British population, and derived from times anterior to the Anglo-Saxon invasion. b. Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, or imported elements. c. Elements introduced since the Anglo-Saxon conquest. § 43. Each of these requires a special analysis, but that of the second will be taken first, and form the contents of the present chapter. All that we have at present learned concerning the Germanic invaders of England, is the geographical area which they originally occupied. How far, however, it was simple Saxons who conquered England single-handed, or how far the particular Saxon Germans were portions of a complex population, requires further investigation. Were the Saxons one division of the German population, whilst the Angles were another? or were the Angles a section of the Saxons, so that the latter was a generic term including the former? Again, although the Saxon invasion may be the one which has had the greatest influence, and drawn the most attention, why may there not have been separate and independent migrations, the effects and record of which have, in the lapse of time, become fused with those of the more important divisions? § 44. _The Angles; who were they? and what was their relation to the Saxons?_--The first answer to this question embodies a great fact in the way of internal evidence, viz., that they were the people from whom _England_ derives the name it bears = _Angle land_, i.e., _land of the Angles_. Our language too is _English_, i.e., _Angle_. Whatever, then, they may have been on the Continent, they were a leading section of the invaders here. Why then has their position in our inquiries been hitherto so subordinate to that of the Saxons? It is because their importance and preponderance are not so manifest in Germany as we infer them to have been in Britain. Nay more, their historical place amongst the nations of Germany, is both insignificant and uncertain; indeed, it will be seen from the sequel, that _in and of themselves_ we know next to nothing about them, knowing them only in their _relations_, i.e., to ourselves and to the Saxons. § 45. Although they are the section of the immigration which gave the name to England, and, as such, the preponderating element in the eyes of the present _English_, they were not so in the eyes of the original British; who neither knew at the time of the Conquest, nor know now, of any other name for their German enemies but _Saxon_. And _Saxon_ is the name by which the present English are known to the Welsh, Armorican, and Gaelic Celts. Welsh _Saxon_. Armorican _Soson_. Gaelic _Sassenach_. § 46. Although they are the section of the immigration which gave the name to _England_, &c., they were quite as little Angles as Saxons in the eyes of foreign cotemporary writers; since the expression _Saxoniæ transmarinæ_, occurs as applied to England. § 47. _Who were the Angles?_--Although they are the section of the immigration which gave the name to _England_, &c., the notices of them as Germans in Germany, are extremely limited. _Extract from Tacitus._--This merely connects them with certain other tribes, and affirms the existence of certain religious ordinances common to them:-- "Contra Langobardos paucitas nobilitat: plurimis ac valentissimis nationibus cincti, non per obsequium sed proeliis et periclitando tuti sunt. Reudigni deinde, et Aviones, et _Angli_, et Varini, et Eudoses, et Suardones, et Nuithones, fluminibus aut silvis muniuntur: nec quidquam notabile in singulis, nisi quod in commune Herthum, id est, Terram matrem colunt, eamque intervenire rebus hominum, invehi populis, arbitrantur. Est in insula Oceani Castum nemus, dicatumque in eo vehiculum, veste contectum, attingere uni sacerdoti concessum. Is adesse penetrali deam intelligit, vectamque bobus feminis multâ cum veneratione prosequitur. Læti tunc dies, festa loca, quæcumque adventu hospitioque dignatur. Non bella ineunt, non arma sumunt, clausum omne ferrum; pax et quies tunc tantùm nota, tunc tantùm amata, donec idem sacerdos satiatam conversatione mortalium deam templo reddat; mox vehiculum et vestes, et, si credere velis, numen ipsum secreto lacu abluitur. Servi ministrant, quos statim idem lacus haurit. Arcanus hinc terror, sanctaque ignorantia, quid sit id, quod tantùm perituri vident."[32] _Extract from Ptolemy._--This connects the Angles with the _Suevi_, and _Langobardi_, and places them on the Middle Elbe.--[Greek: Entos kai mesogeiôn ethnôn megista men esti to te tôn Souêbôn tôn Angeilôn, hoi eisin anatolikôteroi tôn Langobardôn, anateinontes pros tas arktous mechri tôn mesôn tou Albios potamou]. _Extract from Procopius._--For this see § 55. _Heading of a law referred to the age of Charlemagne._--This connects them with the Werini (Varni) and the Thuringians--"Incipit lex _Angliorum_ et _Werinorum_ hoc est _Thuringorum_." § 48. These notices agree in giving the Angles a _German_ locality, and in connecting them ethnologically, and philologically with the _Germans_ of Germany. And such was, undoubtedly, the case. Nevertheless, it may be seen from § 15 that a _Danish_ origin has been assigned to them. The exact Germanic affinities of the Angles are, how ever, difficult to ascertain, since the tribes with which they are classed are differently classed. This we shall see by asking the following questions:-- § 49. What were the _Langobardi_, with whom the Angles were connected by Tacitus? The most important fact to be known concerning them is, that the general opinion is in favour of their having belonged to either the _High_-German, or Moeso-Gothic division, rather than to the _Low_. § 50. What were the _Suevi_, with whom the Angles were connected by Tacitus? The most important fact to be known concerning them is, that the general opinion is in favour of their having belonged to either the _High_-German or Moeso-Gothic division rather than to the _Low_. § 51. What were the _Werini_, with whom the Angles were connected in the _Leges Anglorum et Werinorum_? Without having any particular _data_ for connecting the Werini (Varni, [Greek: Ouarnoi]) with either the High-German, or the Moeso-Gothic divisions, there are certain facts in favour of their being _Slavonic_. § 52. What were the _Thuringians_, with whom the Angles are connected in the _Leges Anglorum_? Germanic in locality, and most probably allied to the Goths of Moesia in language. If not, High-Germans. § 53. Of the Reudigni, Eudoses, Nuithones, Suardones, and Aviones, too little is known in detail to make the details an inquiry of importance. § 54. The reader has now got a general view of the extent to which the position of the Angles, as a German tribe, is complicated by conflicting statements; statements which connect them with (probably) _High_-German Thuringians, Suevi, and Langobardi, and with (probably) _Slavonic_ Werini, or Varni; whereas in England, they are scarcely distinguishable from the _Low_-German Saxons. In the present state of our knowledge, the only safe fact seems to be, that of the common relation of both _Angles_ and Saxons to the present _English_ of England. This brings the two sections within a very close degree of affinity, and makes it probable, that, just as at present, descendants of the Saxons are English (_Angle_) in Britain, so, in the third and fourth centuries, ancestors of the Angles were Saxons in Germany. Why, however, the one name preponderated on the Continent, and the other in England is difficult to ascertain. § 55. The Frisians have been mentioned as a Germanic population _likely_ to have joined in the invasion of Britain; the _presumption_ in favor of their having done so arising from their geographical position. There is, however, something more than mere presumption upon this point. Archbishop Usher, amongst the earlier historians, and Mr. Kemble amongst those of the present day, as well as other intermediate investigators, have drawn attention to certain important notices of them. The main facts bearing upon this question are the following:-- 1. Hengist, according to some traditions, was a Frisian hero. 2. Procopius wrote as follows:--[Greek: Brittian de tên nêson ethnê tria poluanthrôpotata echousi, basileus te eis autôn hekastôi ephestêken, onomata de keitai tois ethnesi toutois Angiloi te kai Phrissones kai hoi têi nêsôi homônumoi Brittônes. Tosautê de hê tônde tôn ethnôn poluanthrôpia phainetai ousa hôste ana pan etos kata pollous enthende metanistamenoi xun gunaixi kai paisin es Phrangous chôrousin].--Procop. B. G. iv. 20. 3. In the Saxon Chronicle we find the following passage:--"That same year, the armies from among the East-Anglians, and from among the North-Humbrians, harassed the land of the West-Saxons chiefly, most of all by their 'æscs,' which they had built many years before. Then king Alfred commanded long ships to be built to oppose the æscs; they were full-nigh twice as long as the others; some had sixty oars, and some had more; they were both swifter and steadier, and also higher than the others. They were shapen neither like the _Frisian_ nor the Danish, but so as it seemed to him that they would be most efficient. Then some time in the same year, there came six ships to Wight, and there did much harm, as well as in Devon, and elsewhere along the sea coast. Then the king commanded nine of the new ships to go thither, and they obstructed their passage from the port towards the outer sea. Then went they with three of their ships out against them; and three lay in the upper part of the port in the dry; the men were gone from them ashore. Then took they two of the three ships at the outer part of the port, and killed the men, and the other ship escaped; in that also the men were killed except five; they got away because the other ships were aground. They also were aground very disadvantageously, three lay aground on that side of the deep on which the Danish ships were aground, and all the rest upon the other side, so that no one of them could get to the others. But when, the water had ebbed many furlongs from the ships, then the Danish men went from their three ships to the other three which were left by the tide on their side, and then they there fought against them. There was slain Lucumon the king's reeve, and Wulfheard the _Frisian_, and Æbbe the _Frisian_, and Æthelhere the _Frisian_, and Æthelferth the king's 'geneat,' and of all the men, _Frisians_ and English, seventy-two; and of the Danish men one hundred and twenty." § 56. I believe then, that, so far from the current accounts being absolutely correct, in respect to the Germanic elements of the English population, the _Jutes_, as mentioned by Beda, formed _no_ part of it, whilst the _Frisians_, _not_ so mentioned, _were a real constituent therein_; besides which, there may, very easily, have been other Germanic tribes, though in smaller proportions. * * * * * CHAPTER VI. THE CELTIC STOCK OF LANGUAGES, AND THEIR RELATIONS TO THE ENGLISH. § 57. The languages of Great Britain at the invasion of Julius Cæsar 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. § 58. Taken altogether the Celtic tongues form a very remarkable class. As compared with those of the Gothic stock they are marked by the following characteristics:-- _The scantiness of the declension of Celtic nouns._--In Irish there is a peculiar form for the dative plural, as _cos_ = _foot_, _cos-aibh_ = _to feet_ (ped-ibus); and beyond this there is nothing else whatever in the way of _case_, as found in the German, Latin, Greek, and other tongues. Even the isolated form in question is not found in the Welsh and Breton. Hence the Celtic tongues are pre-eminently uninflected in the way of _declension_. § 59. The _agglutinate character of their verbal inflections_.--In Welsh the pronouns for _we_, _ye_, and _they_, are _ni_, _chwyi_, and _hwynt_ _respectively_. In Welsh also the root = _love_ is _car_. As conjugated in the plural number this is-- car-wn = am-amus. car-ych = am-atis. car-ant = am-ant. Now the -wn, -ych, and -ant, of the persons of the verbs are the personal pronouns, so that the inflection is really a verb and a pronoun in a state of _agglutination_; i.e., in a state where the original separate existence of the two sorts of words is still manifest. This is probably the case with languages in general. The Celtic, however, has the peculiarity of exhibiting it in an unmistakable manner; showing, as it were, an inflection in the process of formation, and (as such) exhibiting an early stage of language. § 60. _The system of initial mutations._--The Celtic, as has been seen, is deficient in the ordinary means of expressing case. How does it make up for this? Even thus. The noun changes its initial letter according to its relation to the other words of the sentence. Of course this is subject to rule. As, however, I am only writing for the sake of illustrating in a general way the peculiarities of the Celtic tongues, the following table, from Prichard's "Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations," is sufficient. Câr, _a kinsman_. 1. _form_, Câr agos, _a near kinsman_. 2. Ei gâr, _his kinsman_. 3. Ei châr, _her kinsman_. 4. Vy nghâr, _my kinsman_. Tâd, _a father_. 1. _form_, Tâd y plentyn, _the child's father_. 2. Ei dâd, _his father_. 3. Ei thâd, _her father_. 4. Vy nhâd, _my father_. Pen, _a head_. 1. _form_, Pen gwr, _the head of a man_. 2. Ei ben, _his head_. 3. Ei phen, _her head_. 4. Vy mhen, _my head_. Gwas, _a servant_. 1. _form_, Gwâs fydhlon, _a faithful servant_. 2. Ei wâs, _his servant_. 3. Vy ngwas, _my servant_. Duw, _a god_. 1. _form_, Duw trugarog, _a merciful god_. 2. Ei dhuw, _his god_. 3. Vy nuw, _my god_. Bara, _bread_. 1. _form_, Bara cann, _white bread_. 2. Ei vara, _his bread_. 3. Vy mara, _my bread_. Lhaw, _a hand_. 1. _form_, Lhaw wenn, _a white hand_. 2. Ei law, _his hand_. Mam, _a mother_. 1. _form_, Mam dirion, _a tender mother_. 2. Ei vam, _his mother_. Rhwyd, _a net_. 1. _form_, Rhwyd lawn, _a full net_. 2. Ei rwyd, _his net_. From the Erse. Súil, _an eye_. 1. _form_, Súil. 2. A húil, his eye. Sláinte, _health_. 2. _form_, Do hláinte, _your health_. § 61. The Celtic tongues have lately received especial illustration from the researches of Mr. Garnett. Amongst others, the two following points are particularly investigated by him:-- 1. The affinities of the ancient language of Gaul. 2. The affinities of the Pictish language or dialect. § 62. _The ancient language of Gaul Cambrian._--The evidence in favour of the ancient language of Gaul being Cambrian rather than Gaelic, lies in the following facts:-- The old Gallic glosses are more Welsh than Gaelic. a. _Petorritum_ = _a four-wheeled carriage_, from the Welsh, _peder_ = _four_, and _rhod_ = _a wheel_. The Gaelic for _four_ is _ceathair_, and the Gaelic compound would have been different. b. _Pempedula_, the _cinque-foil_, from the Welsh _pump_ = _five_, and _dalen_ = _a leaf_. The Gaelic for _five_ is _cuig_, and the Gaelic compound would have been different. c. _Candetum_ = a measure of 100 feet, from the Welsh _cant_ = 100. The Gaelic for _a hundred_ is _cead_, and the Gaelic compound would have been different. d. _Epona_ = _the goddess of horses._ In the old Armorican the root _ep_ = _horse_. The Gaelic for a horse is _each_. e. The evidence from the names of geographical localities in Gaul, both ancient and modern, goes the same way: _Nantuates_, _Nantouin_, _Nanteuil_, are derived from the Welsh _nant_ = _a valley_, a word unknown in Gaelic. f. The evidence of certain French provincial words, which are Welsh and Armorican rather than Erse or Gaelic. § 63. _The Pictish most probably Cambrian._--The evidence in favour of the Pictish being Cambrian rather than Gaelic lies in the following facts: a. When St. Columbanus preached, whose mother-tongue was Irish Gaelic, he used an interpreter. This shows the _difference_ between the Pict and Gaelic. What follows shows the affinity between the Pict and Welsh. b. A manuscript in the Colbertine library contains a list of Pictish kings from the fifth century downwards. These names are more Welsh than Gaelic. _Taran_ = _thunder_ in Welsh. _Uven_ is the Welsh _Owen_. The first syllable in _Talorg_ ( = _forehead_) is the _tal_ in _Talhaiarn_ = _iron forehead_, _Taliessin_ = _splendid forehead_, Welsh names. _Wrgust_ is nearer to the Welsh _Gwrgust_ than to the Irish _Fergus_. Finally, _Drust_, _Drostan_, _Wrad_, _Necton_, closely resemble the Welsh _Trwst_, _Trwstan_, _Gwriad_, _Nwython_. _Cineod_ and _Domhnall_ (_Kenneth_ and _Donnell_) are the only true Erse forms in the list. c. The only Pictish common name extant is the well-known compound _pen val_, which is, in the oldest MS. of Beda, _peann fahel_. This means _caput valli_, and is the name for the eastern termination of the Vallum of Antoninus. Herein _pen_ is unequivocally Welsh, meaning _head_. It is an impossible form in Gaelic. _Fal_, on the other hand, is apparently Gaelic, the Welsh for a _rampart_ being _gwall_. _Fal_, however, occurs in Welsh also, and means _inclosure_. The evidence just indicated is rendered nearly conclusive by an interpolation, apparently of the twelfth century, of the Durham MS. of Nennius, whereby it is stated that the spot in question was called in Gaelic _Cenail_. Now Cenail is the modern name _Kinneil_, and it is also a Gaelic translation of the Pict _pen val_, since _cean_ is the Gaelic for _head_, and _fhail_ for _rampart_ or _wall_. If the older form were Gaelic, the substitution, or translation, would have been superfluous. d. The name of the _Ochil Hills_ in Perthshire is better explained from the Pict _uchel_ = _high_, than from the Gaelic _uasal_. e. Bryneich, the British form of the province Bernicia, is better explained by the Welsh _bryn_ = _ridge_ (_hilly country_), than by any word in Gaelic.--Garnett, in "Transactions of Philological Society." * * * * * CHAPTER VII. THE ANGLO-NORMAN, AND THE LANGUAGES OF THE CLASSICAL STOCK. § 64. The languages of Greece and Rome belong to one and the same stock. The Greek and its dialects, both ancient and modern, constitute the Greek of the Classical stock. The Latin in all its dialects, the old Italian languages allied to it, and the modern tongues derived from the Roman, constitute the Latin branch of the Classical stock. Now, although the Greek dialects are of only secondary importance in the illustration of the history of the English language, the Latin elements require a special consideration. This is because the Norman French, introduced into England by the battle of Hastings, is a language derived from the Roman, and consequently a language of the Latin branch of the Classical stock. § 65. The Latin language overspread the greater part of the Roman empire. It supplanted a multiplicity of aboriginal languages; just as the English of North America _has_ supplanted the aboriginal tongues of the native Indians, and just as the Russian _is_ supplanting those of Siberia and Kamskatka. Sometimes the war that the Romans carried on against the old inhabitants was a war of extermination. In this case the original language was superseded _at once_. In other cases their influence was introduced gradually. In this case the influence of the original language was greater and more permanent. Just as in the United States the English came in contact with an American, whilst in New Holland it comes in contact with an Australian language, so was the Latin language of Rome engrafted, sometimes on a Celtic, sometimes on a Gothic, and sometimes on some other stock. The nature of the original language must always be borne in mind. From Italy, its original seat, the Latin was extended in the following chronological order:-- 1. To the Spanish Peninsula; where it overlaid or was engrafted on languages allied to the present Biscayan. 2. To Gaul, or France, where it overlaid or was engrafted on languages of the Celtic stock. 3. To Dacia and Pannonia where it overlaid or was engrafted on a language the stock whereof is undetermined, but which was, probably, Sarmatian. The introduction of the Latin into Dacia and Pannonia took place in the time of Trajan. § 66. From these different introductions of the Latin into different countries we have the following modern languages--1st Italian, 2nd Spanish and Portuguese, 3rd French, 4th Wallachian; to which must be added a 5th, the Romanese of part of Switzerland. _Specimen of the Romanese._ _Luke_ xv. 11. 11. Ün Hum veva dus Filgs: 12. Ad ilg juveu da quels schet alg Bab, "Bab mi dai la Part de la Rauba c' aud' à mi:" ad el parchè or ad els la Rauba. 13. A bucca bears Gis suenter, cur ilg Filg juven vet tut mess ansemel, scha tilà 'l navent en ünna 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 ün grond Fumaz: ad el antschavet a ver basengs. 15. Ad el mà, à: sa plidè enn ün Burgeis da quella Terra; a quel ilg tarmatet or sin sês 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 mà 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 ün da tes Fumelgs.'" _Specimen of the Wallachian._ _Luke_ xv. 11. 11. Un om evea do[)i] fec or[)i]. 12. Shi a zis c'el ma[)i] tinr din e[)i] tatlu[)i] su: tat, dm[)i] partea c'e mi se kade de avucie: shi de a imprcit lor avuciea. 13. Shi nu dup multe zile, adunint toate fec orul c el ma[)i] tinr, s'a dus intr 'o car departe, shi akolo a rsipit toat avuciea ca, viecuind intr dezm[)i]erdr[)i]. 14. Shi keltuind el toate, c'a fkut foamete mare intr' ac'ea car: shi el a inc'eput a se lipsi. 15. Shi mergina c'a lipit de unul din lkuitori[)i] cri[)i] ac'eia: si 'l a trimis pre el la earinide sale c pask porc'i[)i]. 16. Shi doria c 'sh[)i] sature pinctec'ele s[)u] de roshkobele c'e minka porc'i[)i]! shi nimin[)i] nu [)i] da lu[)i]. 17. Iar viind intru sine, a zis; kic[)i] argac[)i] a[)i] tatlu[)i] mie[)u] sint indestulac[)i] de pi[)i]ne, iar e[)u] p[)i]ei[)u] de foame. 18. Skula-m-vio[)u], shi m' voi[)u] duc'e la tata mie[)u], shi vio[)u] zic'e lui: 19. Tat, greshit-am la c'er shi inaintea ta, shi nu mai sint vrednik a m kema fiul t[)u]; fm ka pre unul din argaci[)i] ti. § 67. Such is the _general_ view of the languages derived from the Latin, i.e., of the languages of the Latin branch of the Classical stock. The French requires to be more minutely exhibited. Between the provincial French of the north and the provincial French of the south, there is a difference, at the present day, at least of dialect, and perhaps of language. This is shown by the following specimens: the first from the canton of Arras, on the confines of Flanders; the second from the department of Var, in Provence. The date of each is A.D. 1807. I. _Luke_ xv. 11. 11. Ain homme avoüait deeux garchéons. 12. L'pus jone dit a sain père, "Main père, baillé m'cheu quî doüo me 'r v'nir ed vous bien," et lue père leu partit sain bien. 13. Ain n'sais yur, tro, quate, chéon jours après l'pus tiò d'cnés déeux éféans ôyant r'cuéllé tout s'n' héritt'main, s'ot' ainvoye dains nâin pahis gramain loüon, dú qu'il échilla tout s'n' argint ain fageant l'braingand dains chés cabarets. 14. Abord qu'il o eu tout bu, tout mié et tout drélé, il o v'nu adonc dains ch' pahis lo ainn' famaine cruüelle, et i c'mainchonait d'avoir fon-ye d' pon-ye (i.e. faim de pain). II. THE SAME. 11. Un homé avié dous enfans. 12. Lou plus pichoun diguét a son päiré, "Moun päiré, dounas mi ce què mi reven de vouastré ben;" lou pairé faguet lou partagé de tout ce que poussédavo. 13. Paou do jours après, lou pichoun vendét tout se què soun päiré li avié desamparat, et s'en anét díns un päis fourco luench, ounté dissipét tout soun ben en debaucho. 14. Quand aguét tou arcaba, uno grosso famino arribet dins aqueou päis et, leou, si veguét reduech à la derniero misèro. Practically speaking, although in the central parts of France the northern and southern dialects melt into each other, the Loire may be considered as a line of demarcation between two languages; the term language being employed because, in the Middle Ages, whatever may be their real difference, their northern tongue and the southern tongue were dealt with not as separate dialects, but as distinct languages--the southern being called Provençal, the northern Norman-French. Of these two languages (for so they will in the following pages be called, for the sake of convenience) the southern, or Provençal, approaches the dialects of Spain; the Valencian of Spain and the Catalonian of Spain being Provençal rather than standard Spanish or Castilian. The southern French is sometimes called the Langue d'Oc, and sometimes the Limousin. § 68. The Norman-French, spoken from the Loire to the confines of Flanders, and called also the Langue d'Oyl, differed from the Provençal 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. § 69. It is the Norman-French that most especially bears upon the history of the English language. _Specimen from the Anglo-Norman poem of Charlemagne._ Un jur fu Karléun al Seint-Denis muster, Reout prise sa corune, en croiz seignat sun chef; E ad ceinte sa espée: li pons fud d'or mer. Dux i out e dermeines e baruns e chevalers. Li emperères reguardet la reine sa muillers. Ele fut ben corunée al plus bel e as meuz. Il la prist par le poin desuz un oliver, De sa pleine parole la prist à reisuner: "Dame, véistes unkes hume nul de desuz ceil Tant ben séist espée no la corone el chef! Uncore cunquerrei-jo citez ot mun espeez." Cele ne fud pas sage, folement respondeit: "Emperere," dist-ele, trop vus poez preiser. "Uncore en sa-jo un ki plus se fait léger, Quant il porte corune entre ses chevalers; Kaunt il met sur sa teste, plus belement lui set" In the northern French we must recognise not only a Celtic and a Classical, but also a Gothic element: since Clovis and Charlemagne were no Frenchmen, but Germans. The Germanic element in French has still to be determined. In the northern French of _Normandy_ there is a second Gothic element, viz., a Scandinavian element. See § 76. * * * * * QUESTIONS. 1. What are the _present_ languages of Wales, the Isle of Man, the Scotch Highlands, and Ireland? 2. What are the _present_ languages of Germany and Holland? How are they related to the _present_ language of England? How to the original language of England? 3. Enumerate the chief _supposed_ migrations from Germany to England, giving (when possible) the _date_ of each, the particular German tribe by which each was undertaken, and the parts of Great Britain where the different landings were made. Why do I say _supposed_ migrations? Criticise, in detail, the evidence by which they are supported, and state the extent to which it is exceptionable. Who was Beda? What were the sources of his information? 4. Give reasons for believing the existence of Germans in England anterior to A.D. 447. 5. Who are the present Jutlanders of Jutland? Who the inhabitants of the district called Anglen in Sleswick? What are the reasons for connecting these with the Jutes and Angles of Beda? What those for denying such a connection? 6. What is the meaning of the termination -uarii in _Cant-uarii_ and _Vect-uarii_? What was the Anglo-Saxon translation of _Antiqui Saxones_, _Occidentales Saxones_, _Orientates Saxones_, _Meridionales Saxones_? What are the known variations in the form of the word _Vectis_, meaning the _Isle of Wight_? What those of the root Jut- as the name of the inhabitants of the peninsula of Jutland? 7. Translate _Cantware_, _Wihtware_, into Latin. How does Alfred translate _Jutæ_? How does the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle? What is the derivation of the name _Carisbrook_, a town in the Isle of Wight? 8. Take exception to the opinions that _Jutes_, from _Jutland_, formed part of the Germanic invasion of England; or, rather, take exceptions to the evidence upon which that opinion is based. 9. From what part of Germany were the _Angles_ derived? What is Beda's? what Ethelweard's statement concerning them? Who were the _Angli_ of Tacitus? 10. What is the derivation of the word Mercia? 11. Give the localities of the Old Saxons, and the Northalbingians. Investigate the area occupied by the Anglo-Saxons. 12. What is the present population of the Dutch province of Friesland? What its language? What the dialects and stages of that language? 13. What was the language of the Asega-bog, the Heliand, Beowulf, Hildubrand and Hathubrant, the Carolinian Psalms, the Gospels of Ulphilas, and the poems of Gysbert Japicx? 14. Make a map of Ancient Germany and Scandinavia according to languages and dialects of those two areas. Exhibit, in a tabular form, the languages of the Gothic stock. Explain the meaning of the words _Gothic_, and _Moeso-Gothic_, and _Platt-Deutsch_. 15. Analyze the Scandinavian forms _Solen_, _Bordet_, and _brennast_. 16. Exhibit the difference between the _logical_ and the _historical_ analysis of a language. 17. What are the Celtic names for the _English language_? 18. Enumerate the chief Germanic populations connected by ancient writers with the _Angles_, stating the Ethnological relations of each, and noticing the extent to which they coincide with those of the Angles. 19. What are the reasons for believing that there is a _Frisian_ element in the population of England? 20. Exhibit, in a tabular form, the languages and dialects of the Celtic stock. To which division did the Gallic of ancient Gaul, and the Pict belong? Support the answer by reasons. What were the relations of the Picts to the Gaelic inhabitants of Scotland? What to the Lowland Scotch? What to the Belgæ? 21. Explain the following words--_petorritum_, _pempedula_, _candetum_, _Epona_, _Nantuates_, _peann fahel_ and _Bernicia_. What inferences do you draw from the derivation of them? 22. Exhibit, in a tabular form, the languages and dialects of the Classical stock. 23. What is the bearing of the statements of Tacitus and other ancient writers respecting the following Germanic populations upon the ethnological relations of the Angles,--Aviones, Reudigni, Suevi, Langobardi, Frisii, Varini? 24. What is meant by the following terms, Provençal, Langue d'Oc, Langue d'Oyl, Limousin, and Norman-French? 25. What languages, besides the Celtic and Latin, enter into the composition of the French? * * * * * PART II. HISTORY AND ANALYSIS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. * * * * * CHAPTER I. HISTORICAL AND LOGICAL ELEMENTS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. § 70. The Celtic elements of the present English fall into five classes. 1. Those that are of late introduction, and cannot be called original and constituent parts of the language. Some of such are the words _flannel_, _crowd_ (a fiddle), from the Cambrian; and _kerne_ (an Irish foot-soldier), _galore_ (enough), _tartan_, _plaid_, &c., from the Gaelic branch. 2. Those that are originally common to both the Celtic and Gothic stocks. Some of such are _brother_, _mother_, in Celtic _brathair_, _mathair_; the numerals, &c. 3. Those that have come to us from the Celtic, but have come to us through the medium of another language. Some of such are _druid_ and _bard_, whose _immediate_ source is, not the Celtic but the Latin. 4. Celtic elements of the Anglo-Norman, introduced into England after the Conquest, and occurring in that language as remains of the original Celtic of Gaul. 5. Those that have been retained from the original Celtic of the island, and which form genuine constituents of our language. These fall into three subdivisions. a. Proper names--generally of geographical localities; as _the Thames_, _Kent_, &c. b. Common names retained in the provincial dialects of England, but not retained in the current language; as _gwethall_ = _household stuff_, and _gwlanen_ = _flannel_ in Herefordshire. c. Common names retained in the current language.--The following list is Mr. Garnett's:-- _Welsh._ _English._ Basgawd _Basket_. Berfa _Barrow_. Botwm _Button_. Bràn _Bran_. Clwt _Clout_, _Rag_. Crochan _Crockery_. Crog _Crook_, _Hook_. Cwch _Cock_, in _Cock-boat_. Cwysed _Gusset_. Cyl, Cyln _Kiln_ (_Kill_, provinc.). Dantaeth _Dainty_. Darn _Darn_. Deentur _Tenter_, in _Tenterhook_. Fflaim _Fleam_, _Cattle-lancet_. Fflaw _Flaw_. Ffynnell (air-hole) _Funnel_. Gefyn (fetter) _Gyve_. Greidell _Grid_ in _Gridiron_. Grual _Gruel_. Gwald (hem, border) _Welt_. Gwiced (little door) _Wicket_. Gwn _Gown_. Gwyfr _Wire_. Masg (stitch in netting) _Mesh_. Mattog _Mattock_. Mop _Mop_. Rhail (fence) _Rail_. Rhashg (slice) _Rasher_. Rhuwch _Rug_. Sawduriaw _Solder_. Syth (glue) _Size_. Tacl _Tackle_. § 71. _Latin of the first period._--Of the Latin introduced by Cæsar 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_ = _glevæ castra_) from _castra_. The Latin words introduced between the time of Cæsar and Hengist may be called the _Latin of the first period_, or the _Latin of the Celtic period_. § 72. _The Anglo-Saxon._--This is not noticed here, because, from being the staple of the present language, it is more or less the subject of the book throughout. § 73. _The Danish, or Norse._--The pirates that pillaged Britain, under the name of Danes, were not exclusively the inhabitants of Denmark. Of the three Scandinavian nations, the Swedes took the least share, the Norwegians the greatest, in these invasions. The language of the three nations was the same; the differences being differences of dialect. It was that which is now spoken in Iceland, having been once common to Scandinavia and Denmark. The Danish that became incorporated with our language, under the reign of Canute and his sons, may be called the _direct_ Danish element, in contradistinction to the _indirect_ Danish of § 76. The determination of the amount of Danish in English is difficult. It is not difficult to prove a word _Scandinavian_; but, then, we must also show that it is not German as well. A few years back the current opinion was against the doctrine that there was much Danish in England. At present, the tendency is rather the other way. The following facts are from Mr. Garnett.--"Phil. Trans." vol. i. 1. The Saxon name of the present town of _Whitby_ in Yorkshire was _Streoneshalch_. The present name _Whitby_, _Hvitby_, or _Whitetown_, is Danish. 2. The Saxon name of the capital of Derbyshire was _Northweortheg_. The present name is Danish. 3. The termination -by = _town_ is Norse. 4. On a monument in Aldburgh church, Holdernesse, in the East Riding of Yorkshire, referred to the age of Edward the Confessor, is found the following inscription:-- _Ulf_ het aræran cyrice _for hanum_ and for Gunthara saula. "Ulf bid rear the church for him and for the soul of Gunthar." Now, in this inscription, _Ulf_, in opposition to the Anglo-Saxon _Wulf_, is a Norse form; whilst _hanum_ is a Norse dative, and by no means an Anglo-Saxon one.--Old Norse _hanum_, Swedish _honom_. 5. The use of _at_ for _to_ as the sign of the infinitive mood is Norse, not Saxon. It is the regular prefix in Icelandic, Danish, Swedish, and Feroic. It is also found in the northern dialects of the Old English, and in the particular dialect of Westmoreland at the present day. 6. The use of _sum_ for _as_; e.g.,--_swa sum_ we forgive oure detturs. 7. Isolated words in the northern dialects are Norse rather than Saxon. _Provincial._ _Common Dialect._ _Norse._ Braid _Resemble_ Braas, _Swed._ Eldin _Firing_ Eld, _Dan._ Force _Waterfall_ Fors, _D. Swed._ Gar _Make_ Göra, _Swed._ Gill _Ravine_ Gil, _Iceland._ Greet _Weep_ Grata, _Iceland._ Ket _Carrion_ Kiöd--flesh, _Dan._ Lait _Seek_ Lede, _Dan._ Lathe _Barn_ Lade, _Dan._ Lile _Little_ Lille, _Dan._ § 74. _Roman of the second period._--Of the Latin introduced under the Christianised Saxon sovereigns, many words are extant. They relate chiefly to ecclesiastical matters, just as the Latin of the Celtic period bore upon military affairs. _Mynster_, a minster, _monasterium_; _portic_, a porch, _porticus_; _cluster_, a cloister, _claustrum_; _munuc_, a monk, _monachus_; _bisceop_, a bishop, _episcopus_; _arcebisceop_, archbishop, _archiepiscopus_; _sanct_, a saint, _sanctus_; _profost_, a provost, _propositus_; _pall_, a pall, _pallium_; _calic_, a chalice, _calix_; _candel_, a candle, _candela_; _psalter_, a psalter, _psalterium_; _mæsse_, a mass, _missa_; _pistel_, an epistle, _epistola_; _prædic-ian_, to preach, _prædicare_; _prof-ian_, to prove, _probare_. The following are the names of foreign plants and animals:--_camell_, a camel, _camelus_; _ylp_, elephant, _elephas_; _ficbeam_, fig-tree, _ficus_; _feferfuge_, feverfew, _febrifuga_; _peterselige_, parsley, _petroselinum_. Others are the names of articles of foreign origin, as _pipor_, pepper, _piper_; _purpur_, purple, _purpura_; _pumicstan_, pumicestone, _pumex_. This is the Latin of the second, or Saxon period. § 75. _The Anglo-Norman element._--For practical purposes we may say that the French or Anglo-Norman element appeared in our language after the battle of Hastings, A.D. 1066. Previous, however, to that period we find notices of intercourse between the two countries. 1. The residence in England of Louis Outremer. 2. Ethelred II. married Emma, daughter of Richard Duke of Normandy, and the two children were sent to Normandy for education. 3. Edward the Confessor is particularly stated to have encouraged French manners and the French language in England. 4. Ingulphus of Croydon speaks of his own knowledge of French. 5. Harold passed some time in Normandy. 6. The French article _la_, in the term _la Drove_, occurs in a deed of A.D. 975. The chief Anglo-Norman elements of our language are the terms connected with the feudal system, the terms relating to war and chivalry, and a great portion of the law terms--_duke_, _count_, _baron_, _villain_, _service_, _chivalry_, _warrant_, _esquire_, _challenge_, _domain_, &c. § 76. When we remember that the word _Norman_ means _man of the north_, that it is a _Scandinavian_, and _not a French_ word, that it originated in the invasions of the followers of Rollo and and other _Norwegians_, and that just as part of England was overrun by Pagan buccaneers called _Danes_, part of France was occupied by similar _Northmen_, we see the likelihood of certain Norse words finding their way into the French language, where they would be superadded to its original Celtic and Roman elements. The extent to which this is actually the case has only been partially investigated. It is certain, however, that some French words are Norse or Scandinavian. Such, for instance, are several _names of geographical localities_ either near the sea, or the river Seine, in other words, within that tract which was most especially occupied by the invaders. As is to be expected from the genius of the French language, these words are considerably altered in form. Thus, NORSE. ENGLISH. FRENCH. Toft Toft Tot. Beck Beck Bec. Flöt Fleet[33] Fleur, &c. and in these shapes they appear in the Norman names _Yvetot_, _Caudebec_, and _Harfleur_, &c. Now any words thus introduced from the Norse of Scandinavia into the French of Normandy, might, by the Norman Conquest of England, be carried further, and so find their way into the English. In such a case, they would constitute its _indirect_ Scandinavian element. A list of these words has not been made; indeed the question requires far more investigation than it has met with. The names, however, of the islands _Guerns-ey_, _Jers-ey_, and _Aldern-ey_, are certainly of the kind in question--since the -ey, meaning _island_, is the same as the -ey in _Orkn-ey_, and is the Norse rather than the Saxon form. § 77. _Latin of the third period._--This means the Latin which was introduced between the battle of Hastings and the revival of literature. It chiefly originated in the cloister, in the universities, and, to a certain extent, in the courts of law. It must be distinguished from the _indirect_ Latin introduced as part and parcel of the Anglo-Norman. It has yet to be accurately analyzed. § 78. _Latin of the fourth period._--This means the Latin which has been introduced between the revival of literature and the present time. It has originated in the writings of learned men in general, and is distinguished from that of the previous periods by: 1. Being less altered in form: 2. Preserving, with substantives, in many cases its original inflections; _axis_, _axes_; _basis_, _bases_: 3. Relating to objects and ideas for which the increase of the range of science in general has required a nomenclature. § 79. _Greek._--Words derived _directly_ from the Greek are in the same predicament as the Latin of the third period--_phænomenon_, _phænomena_; _criterion_, _criteria_, &c. words which are only _indirectly_ of Greek origin, being considered to belong to the language from which they were immediately introduced into the English. Such are _deacon_, _priest_, &c., introduced through the Latin. Hence a word like _church_ proves no more in regard to a Greek element in English, than the word _abbot_ proves in respect to a Syrian one. § 80. The Latin of the fourth period and the Greek agree in retaining, in many cases, original inflexions rather than adopting the English ones; in other words, they agree in being but _imperfectly incorporated_. The phænomenon of imperfect incorporation is reducible to the following rules:-- 1. That it has a direct ratio to the date of the introduction, i.e., the more recent the word the more likely it is to retain its original inflexion. 2. That it has a relation to the number of meanings belonging to the words: thus, when a single word has two meanings, the original inflexion expresses one, the English inflexion another--_genius_, _genii_, often (_spirits_), _geniuses_ (_men of genius_). 3. That it occurs with substantives only, and that only in the expression of number. Thus, although the plural of substantives like _axis_ and _genius_ are Latin, the possessive cases are English. So also are the degrees of comparison for adjectives, like _circular_, and the tenses, &c. for verbs, like _perambulate_. § 81. The following is a list of the chief Latin substantives introduced during the latter part of the fourth period; and preserving the _Latin_ plural forms-- FIRST CLASS. _Words wherein the Latin plural is the same as the Latin singular._ (a) _Sing._ _Plur._ | (b) _Sing._ _Plur._ Apparatus apparat-us | Caries cari-es Hiatus hiat-us | Congeries congeri-es Impetus impet-us | Series seri-es | Species speci-es | Superficies superfici-es. SECOND CLASS. _Words wherein the Latin plural is formed from the Latin singular by changing the last syllable._ (a).--_Where the singular termination -a is changed in the plural into -æ_:-- _Sing._ _Plur._ | _Sing._ _Plur._ Formul-a formul-æ | Nebul-a nebul-æ Lamin-a lamin-æ | Scori-a scori-æ. Larv-a larv-æ | (b).--_Where the singular termination -us is changed in the plural into -i_:-- _Sing._ _Plur._ | _Sing._ _Plur._ Calcul-us calcul-i | Polyp-us polyp-i Coloss-us coloss-i | Radi-us radi-i Convolvul-us convolvul-i | Ranuncul-us ranuncul-i Foc-us foc-i | Sarcophag-us sarcophag-i Geni-us geni-i | Schirr-us schirrh-i Mag-us mag-i | Stimul-us stimul-i Nautil-us nautil-i | Tumul-us tumul-i. Oesophag-us oesophag-i | (c).--_Where the singular termination -um is changed in the plural into -a_:-- _Sing._ _Plur._ | _Sing._ _Plur._ Animalcul-um animalcul-a | Mausole-um mausole-a Arcan-um arcan-a | Medi-um medi-a Collyri-um collyri-a | Memorand-um memorand-a Dat-um dat-a | Menstru-um menstru-a Desiderat-um desiderat-a | Moment-um moment-a Effluvi-um effluvi-a | Premi-um premi-a Empori-um empori-a | Scholi-um scholi-a Encomi-um encomi-a | Spectr-um spectr-a Errat-um errat-a | Specul-um specul-a Gymnasi-um gymnasi-a | Strat-um strat-a Lixivi-um lixivi-a | Succedane-um succedane-a. Lustr-um lustr-a | (d).--_Where the singular termination -is is changed in the plural into -es_:-- _Sing._ _Plur._ | _Sing._ _Plur._ Amanuens-is amanuens-es | Ellips-is ellips-es Analys-is analys-es | Emphas-is emphas-es Antithes-is antithes-es | Hypothes-is hypothes-es Ax-is ax-es | Oas-is oas-es Bas-is bas-es | Parenthes-is parenthes-es Cris-is cris-es | Synthes-is synthes-es Diæres-is diæres-es | Thes-is thes-es. THIRD CLASS. _Words wherein the plural is formed by inserting -e between the last two sounds of the singular, so that the former number always contains a syllable more than the latter:--_ _Sing._ _Plur._ Apex _sounded_ apec-s apices Appendix -- appendic-s appendices Calix -- calic-s calices Cicatrix -- cicatric-s cicatrices Helix -- helic-s helices Index -- indec-s indices Radix -- radic-s radices Vertex -- vertec-s vertices Vortex -- vortec-s vortices. In all these words the c of the singular number is sounded as k; of the plural, as s. § 82. The following is a list of the chief Greek substantives lately introduced, and preserving the _Greek_ plural forms-- FIRST CLASS. _Words where the singular termination -on is changed in the plural into -a_:-- _Sing._ _Plur._ _Sing._ _Plur._ Apheli-on apheli-a Criteri-on criteri-a Periheli-on periheli-a Ephemer-on ephemer-a Automat-on automat-a Phænomen-on phænomen-a. SECOND CLASS. _Words where the plural is formed from the original root by adding either -es or -a, but where the singular rejects the last letter of the original root._ _Plurals in_ -es:-- _Original root._ _Plur._ _Sing._ Apsid- apsid-es apsis Cantharid- cantharid-es cantharis Chrysalid- chrysalid-es chrysalis Ephemerid- ephemerid-es ephemeris Tripod- tripod-es tripos. _Plurals in_ -a:-- _Original root._ _Plur._ _Sing._ Dogmat- dogmat-a dogma Lemmat- lemmat-a lemma Miasmat- miasmat-a miasma.[34] § 83. _Miscellaneous elements._--Of miscellaneous elements we have two sorts; those that are incorporated in our language, and are currently understood (e.g., the Spanish word _sherry_, the Arabic word _alkali_, and the Persian word _turban_), and those that, even amongst the educated, are considered strangers. Of this latter kind (amongst many others) are the oriental words _hummum_, _kaftan_, _gul_, &c. Of the currently understood miscellaneous elements of the English language, the most important are from the French; some of which agree with those of the Latin of the fourth period, and the Greek, in preserving the _French_ plural forms--as _beau_, _beaux_, _billets-doux_. _Italian._--Some words of Italian origin do the same; as _virtuoso_, _virtuosi_. _Hebrew._--The Hebrew words, _cherub_ and _seraph_ do the same; the form _cherub-im_, and _seraph-im_ being not only plurals but Hebrew plurals. Beyond the words derived from these five languages, none form their plural other than after the English method, i.e., in -s, as _waltzes_, from the _German_ word _waltz_. § 84. Hence we have a measure of the extent to which a language, which, like the English, at one and the same time requires names for many objects, comes in contact with the tongues of half the world, and has moreover, a great power of incorporating foreign elements, derives fresh words from varied sources; as may be seen from the following incomplete notice of the languages which have, in different degrees, supplied it with new terms. _Arabic._--Admiral, alchemist, alchemy, alcohol, alcove, alembic, algebra, alkali, assassin. _Persian._--Turban, caravan, dervise, &c. _Turkish._--Coffee, bashaw, divan, scimitar, janisary, &c. _Hindoo languages._--Calico, chintz, cowrie, curry, lac, muslin, toddy, &c. _Chinese._--Tea, bohea, congou, hyson, soy, nankin &c. _Malay._--Bantam (fowl), gamboge, rattan, sago, shaddock, &c. _Polynesian._--Taboo, tattoo. _Tungusian or some similar Siberian language._--Mammoth, the bones of which are chiefly from the banks of the Lena. _North American Indian._--Squaw, wigwam, pemmican. _Peruvian._--Charki = prepared meat; whence _jerked_ beef. _Caribbean._--Hammock. § 85. A distinction is drawn between the _direct_ and _indirect_, the latter leading to the _ultimate origin_ of words. Thus a word borrowed into the English from the French, might have been borrowed into the French from the Latin, into the Latin from the Greek, into the Greek from the Persian, &c., and so _ad infinitum_. The investigation of this is a matter of literary curiosity rather than any important branch of philology. The ultimate known origin of many common words sometimes goes back to a great date, and points to extinct languages-- _Ancient Nubian._--Barbarous. _Ancient Egyptian._--Ammonia. _Ancient Syrian._--Cyder. _Ancient Lycian._--Pandar. _Ancient Lydian._--Mæander. _Ancient Persian._--Paradise. § 86. Again, a word from a given language may be introduced by more lines than one; or it may be introduced twice over; once at an earlier, and again at a later period. In such a case its form will, most probably, vary; and, what is more, its meaning as well. Words of this sort may be called _di-morphic_, their _dimorphism_ having originated in one of two reasons--a difference of channel or a difference of date. Instances of the first are, _syrup_, _sherbet_, and _shrub_, all originally from the _Arabic_, _srb_; but introduced differently, viz., the first through the Latin, the second through the Persian, and the third through the Hindoo. Instances of the second are words like _minster_, introduced during the Anglo-Saxon, as contrasted with _monastery_, introduced during the Anglo-Norman period. By the proper application of these processes, we account for words so different in present form, yet so identical in origin, as _priest_ and _presbyter_, _episcopal_ and _bishop_, &c. § 87. _Distinction._--The history of the languages that have been spoken in a particular country, is a different subject from the history of a particular language. The history of the languages that have been spoken in the United States of America, is the history of _Indian_ languages. The history of the language of the United States is the history of a Germanic language. § 88. _Words of foreign simulating a vernacular origin._--These may occur in any mixed language whatever; they occur, however, oftener in the English than in any other. Let a word be introduced from a foreign language--let it have some resemblance in sound to a real English term: lastly, let the meanings of the two words be not absolutely incompatible. We may then have a word of foreign origin taking the appearance of an English one. Such, amongst others, are _beef-eater_, from _boeuffetier_; _sparrow-grass_, _asparagus_; _Shotover_, _Chateauvert_;[35] _Jerusalem_, _Girasole_;[36] _Spanish beefeater_, _spina bifida_; _periwig_, _peruke_; _runagate_, _renegade_; _lutestring_, _lustrino_;[37] _O yes_, _Oyez!_ _ancient_, _ensign_.[38] _Dog-cheap_.--This has nothing to do with _dogs_. The first syllabic is _god_ = _good_ transposed, and the second the _ch-p_ in _chapman_ ( = _merchant_) _cheap_, and _Eastcheap_. In Sir J. Mandeville, we find _god-kepe_ = _good bargain_. _Sky-larking_.--Nothing to do with _larks_ of any sort; still less the particular species, _alauda arvensis_. The word improperly spelt _l-a-r-k_, and banished to the slang regions of the English language, is the Anglo-Saxon _lác_ = _game_, or _sport_; wherein the a is sounded as in _father_ (not as in _farther_). _Lek_ = _game_, in the present Scandinavian languages. _Zachary Macaulay_ = _Zumalacarregui_; _Billy Ruffian_ = _Bellerophon_; _Sir Roger Dowlas_ = _Surajah Dowlah_, although so limited to the common soldiers and sailors, who first used them, as to be exploded vulgarisms rather than integral parts of the language, are examples of the same tendency towards the irregular accommodation of misunderstood foreign terms. _Birdbolt_.--An incorrect name for the _gadus lota_, or _eel-pout_, and a transformation of _barbote_. _Whistle-fish_.--The same for _gadus mustela_, or _weasel-fish_. _Liquorice_ = _glycyrrhiza_. _Wormwood_ = _weremuth_, is an instance of a word from the same language, in an antiquated shape, being equally transformed with a word of really foreign origin. § 89. Sometimes the transformation of the _name_ has engendered a change in the object to which it applies, or, at least, has evolved new ideas in connection with it. How easy for a person who used the words _beef-eater_, _sparrow-grass_, or _Jerusalem_, to believe that the officers designated by the former either eat or used to eat more beef than any other people, that the second word was the name for a _grass_ or herb of which _sparrows_ were fond; and that _Jerusalem_ artichokes came from Palestine. What has just been supposed has sometimes a real occurrence. To account for the name of _Shotover-hill_, I have heard that Little John _shot over_ it. Here the confusion, in order to set itself right, breeds a fiction. Again, in chess, the piece now called the _queen_, was originally the _elephant_. This was in Persian, _ferz_. In French it became _vierge_, which, in time, came to be mistaken for a derivative, and _virgo_ = _the virgin_, _the lady_, _the queen_. § 90. Sometimes, where the form of a word in respect to its _sound_ is not affected, a false spirit of accommodation introduces an unetymological _spelling_; as _frontispiece_, from _frontispecium_, _sovereign_, from _sovrano_, _colleague_ from _collega_, _lanthorn_ (old orthography) from _lanterna_. The value of forms like these consists in their showing that language is affected by false etymologies as well as by true ones. * * * * * § 91. In _lambkin_ and _lancet_, the final syllables (-kin and -et) have the same power. They both express the idea of smallness or diminutiveness. These words are but two out of a multitude, the one (_lamb_) being of Saxon, the other (_lance_) of Norman origin. The same is the case with the superadded syllables: -kin being Saxon; -et Norman. Now to add a Saxon termination to a Norman word, or _vice versâ_, is to corrupt the English language. This leads to some observation respecting the-- § 92. _Introduction of new words and Hybridism._--Hybridism is a term derived from _hybrid-a_, _a mongrel_; a Latin word _of Greek extraction_. The terminations -ize (as in _criticize_), -ism (as in _criticism_), -ic (as in _comic_)--these, amongst many others, are Greek terminations. To add them to words not of Greek origin is to be guilty of hybridism. Hence, _witticism_ is objectionable. The terminations -ble (as in _penetrable_), -bility (as in _penetrability_), -al (as in _parental_)--these, amongst many others, are Latin terminations. To add them to words not of Latin origin is to be guilty of hybridism. Hybridism is the commonest fault that accompanies the introduction of new words. The hybrid additions to the English language are most numerous in works on science. It must not, however, be concealed that several well established words are hybrid; and that, even in the writings of the classical Roman authors, there is hybridism between the Latin and the Greek. Nevertheless, the etymological view of every word of foreign origin is, not that it is put together in England, but that it is brought whole from the language to which it is vernacular. Now no derived word can be brought whole from a language unless, in that language, all its parts exist. The word _penetrability_ is not derived from the English word _penetrable_, by the addition of -ty. It is the Latin word _penetrabilitas_ imported. _In derived words all the parts must belong to one and the same language_, or, changing the expression, _every derived word must have a possible form in the language from which it is taken_. Such is the rule against hybridism. § 93. A true word sometimes takes the appearance of a hybrid without really being so. The -icle, in _icicle_, is apparently the same as the -icle in _radicle_. Now, as _ice_ is Gothic, and -icle classical, hybridism is simulated. _Icicle_, however, is not a derivative but a compound; its parts being _is_ and _gicel_, both Anglo-Saxon words.[39] § 94. _On incompletion of the radical._--Let there be in a given language a series of roots ending in -t, as _sæmat_. 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 _hæmo-ptysis_ (_spitting of blood_), _sema-phore_ (_a sort of telegraph_). The Greek imparisyllabics eject a part of the root in the nominative case; the radical forms being _hæmat-_ and _sæmat-_, not _hæm-_and _sæm-_. Incompletion of the radical is one of the commonest causes of words being coined faultily. It must not, however, be concealed, that even in the classical writers, we have in words like [Greek: distomos] examples of incompletion of the radical. * * * * * § 95. The preceding chapters have paved the way for a distinction between the _historical_ analysis of a language, and the _logical_ analysis of one. Let the present language of England (for illustration's sake only) consist of 40,000 words. Of these let 30,000 be Anglo-Saxon, 5,000 Anglo-Norman, 100 Celtic, 10 Latin of the first, 20 Latin of the second, and 30 Latin of the third period, 50 Scandinavian, and the rest miscellaneous. In this case the language is considered according to the historical origin of the words that compose it, and the analysis is an historical analysis. But it is very evident that the English, or any other language, is capable of being contemplated in another view, and that the same number of words may be very differently classified. Instead of arranging them according to the languages whence they are derived, let them be disposed according to the meanings that they convey. Let it be said, for instance, that out of 40,000 words, 10,000 are the names of natural objects, that 1000 denote abstract ideas, that 1000 relate to warfare, 1000 to church matters, 500 to points of chivalry, 1000 to agriculture, and so on through the whole. In this case the analysis is not historical but logical; the words being classed not according to their _origin_, but according to their _meaning_. Now the logical and historical analyses of a language generally in some degree coincide; that is, terms for a certain set of ideas come from certain languages; just as in English a large proportion of our chemical terms are Arabic, whilst a still larger one of our legal ones are Anglo-Norman. * * * * * CHAPTER II. THE RELATION OF THE ENGLISH TO THE ANGLO-SAXON, AND THE STAGES OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. § 96. The relation of the present English to the Anglo-Saxon is that of a _modern_ language to an _ancient_ one: the words _modern_ and _ancient_ being used in a defined and technical sense. Let the word _smiðum_ illustrate this. _Smið-um_, the dative plural of _smið_, is equivalent in meaning to the English _to smiths_; or to the Latin _fabr-is_. _Smiðum_, however, is a single Anglo-Saxon word (a substantive, and nothing more); whilst its English equivalent is two words (i.e., a substantive with the addition of a preposition). The letter s, in _smiths_, shows that the word is plural. The -um, in _smiðum_, does this and something more. It is the sign of the _dative case_ plural. The -um in _smiðum_, is the part of a word. The preposition _to_ is a separate word with an independent existence. _Smiðum_ is the radical syllable _smið_ + the subordinate inflectional syllable -um, the sign of the dative case. The combination _to smiths_ is the substantive _smiths_ + the preposition _to_, equivalent in power to the sign of a dative case, but different from it in form. As far, then, as the words just quoted is concerned, the Anglo-Saxon differs from the English by expressing an idea by a certain _modification of the form of the root_, whereas the modern English denotes the same idea by _the addition of a preposition_; in other words, the Saxon _inflection_ is superseded by a _combination_ of words. The sentences in italics are mere variations of the same general statement. 1. _The earlier the stage of a given language the greater the amount of its inflectional forms, and the later the stage of a given language, the smaller the amount of them._ 2. _As languages become modern they substitute prepositions and auxiliary verbs for cases and tenses._ 3. _The amount of inflection is in the inverse proportion to the amount of prepositions and auxiliary verbs._ 4. _In the course of time languages drop their inflections, and substitute in its stead circumlocutions by means of prepositions, &c. The reverse never takes place._ 5. _Given two modes of expression, the one inflectional_ (smiðum), _the other circumlocutional_[40] (to smiths), _we can state that the first belongs to an early, the second to a late, state of language._ The present chapter, then showing the relation of the English to the Anglo-Saxon, shows something more. It exhibits the _general_ relation of a modern to an ancient language. As the English is to the Anglo-Saxon, so are the Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian, to the old Norse; and so are the French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanese and Wallachian to the Latin, and the Romaic to the ancient Greek. § 97. Contrasted with the English, the Anglo-Saxon has (among others) the following differences. NOUNS. 1. _Gender._--In Anglo-Saxon there were three genders, the masculine, the feminine, and the neuter. With _adjectives_ each gender had its peculiar declension. With _substantives_ also there were appropriate terminations, though only to a certain degree. 2. The definite article varied with the gender of its substantive; _þæt eage_, the eye; _se steorra_, the star; _seo tunge_, the tongue. 3. _Number._--The plural form in -en (as in _oxen_), rare in English, was common in Anglo-Saxon. It was the regular termination of a whole declension; e.g., _eágan_, eyes; _steorran_, stars; _tungan_, tongues. Besides this, the Anglo-Saxons had forms in -u and -a as _ricu_, kingdoms; _gifa_, gifts. The termination -s, current in the present English, was confined to a single gender and to a single declension, as _endas_, ends; _dagas_, days; _smiðas_, smiths. 4. _Case._--Of these the Saxons had, for their substantives, at least three; viz., the nominative, dative, genitive. With the pronouns and adjectives there was a true accusative form; and with a few especial words an ablative or instrumental one. _Smið_, a smith; _smiðe_, to a smith; _smiðes_, of a smith. Plural, _smiðas_, smiths; _smiðum_, to smiths; _smiða_, of smiths: _he_, he; _hine_, him; _him_, to him; _his_, his; _se_, the; _þa_, the; _þy_, with the; _þam_, to the; _þæs_, of the. 5. _Declension._--In _Anglo-Saxon_ it was necessary to determine the declension of a substantive. There was the weak, or simple declension for words ending in a vowel (as, _eage_, _steorra_, _tunga_), and the strong declension for words ending in a consonant (_smið_, _spræc_, _leáf_). The letters i and u were dealt with as semivowels, semi-vowels being dealt with as consonants; so that words like _sunu_ and _gifu_ belonged to the same declension as _smið_ and _spræc_. 6. _Definite and indefinite form of adjectives._--In Anglo-Saxon each adjective had two forms, one _definite_ and one _indefinite_. There is nothing of this kind in English. We say _a good sword_, and _the good sword_ equally. In Anglo-Saxon, however, the first combination would be _se gode sweord_, the second _án god sweord_, the definite form being distinguished from the indefinite by the addition of a vowel. 7. _Pronouns personal._--The Anglo-Saxon language had for the first two persons a _dual_ number; inflected as follows: _1st Person._ _2nd Person._ _Nom._ Wit _We two_ _Nom._ Git _Ye two_ _Acc._ Unc _Us two_ _Acc._ Ince _You two_ _Gen._ Uncer _Of us two_ _Gen._ Incer _Of you two._ Besides this, the demonstrative, possessive, and relative pronouns, as well as the numerals _twa_ and _þreo_, had a fuller declension than they have at present. VERBS. 8. _Mood._--The subjunctive mood that in the present English (with one exception[41]) differs from the indicative only in the third person singular, was in Anglo-Saxon considerably different from the indicative. _Indicative Mood._ _Pres. Sing._ 1. Lufige. _Plur._ 1. } 2. Lufast. 2. } Lufiað. 3. Lufað. 3. } _Subjunctive Mood._ _Pres. Sing._ 1. } _Plur._ 1. } 2. } Lufige 2. } Lufion. 3. } 3. } The Saxon infinitive ended in -an (_lufian_), and besides this there was a so-called gerundial form, _to lufigenne_. Besides these there were considerable differences in respect to particular words; but of these no notice is taken; the object being to indicate the differences between the _ancient_ and _modern_ stages of a language in respect to _grammatical structure_. 9. To bring about these changes a certain amount _of time_ is, of course, necessary; a condition which suggests the difficult question as to the _rate_ at which languages change. This is different for different languages; but as the investigation belongs to _general_ philology rather than to the particular history of the English language, it finds no place here. § 98. The extent, however, to which external causes may accelerate or retard philological changes, is _not_ foreign to our subject; the influence of the Norman Conquest, upon the previous Anglo-Saxon foundation, being a problem of some difficulty. At the first glance it seems to have been considerable, especially in the way of simplifying the grammar. Yet the accuracy of this view is by no means unequivocal. The reasons against it are as follows: a. In Friesland no such conquest took place. Yet the modern Frisian, as compared with the ancient, is nearly as simple in its grammatical structure, as the English is when compared with the Anglo-Saxon. b. In Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, no such conquest took place. Yet the modern Danish and Swedish, as compared with the Old Norse, are nearly as simple in their grammatical structure, as the English is, when compared with the Anglo-Saxon. The question requires more investigation than it has met with. An extract from Mr. Hallam's "History of Literature" closes the present section, and introduces the next. "Nothing can be more difficult, except by an arbitrary line, than to determine the commencement of the English language; not so much, as in those on the Continent, because we are in want of materials, but rather from an opposite reason, the possibility of showing a very gradual succession of verbal changes that ended in a change of denomination. We should probably experience a similar difficulty, if we knew equally well the current idiom of France or Italy in the seventh and eighth centuries. For when we compare the earliest English of the thirteenth century with the Anglo-Saxon of the twelfth, it seems hard to pronounce why it should pass for a separate language, rather than a modification or simplification of the former. We must conform, however, to usage, and say that the Anglo-Saxon was converted into English:--1. By contracting and otherwise modifying the pronunciation and orthography of words. 2. By omitting many inflections, especially of the noun, and consequently making more use of articles and auxiliaries. 3. By the introduction of French derivatives. 4. By using less inversion and ellipsis, especially in poetry. Of these, the second alone, I think, can be considered as sufficient to describe a new form of language; and this was brought about so gradually, that we are not relieved from much of our difficulty, as to whether some compositions shall pass for the latest offspring of the mother, or the earlier fruits of the daughter's fertility. It is a proof of this difficulty that the best masters of our ancient language have lately introduced the word Semi-Saxon, which is to cover everything from A.D. 1150 to A.D. 1250."--Chapter i. 47. § 99. This shows that by the middle of the 12th century, the Anglo-Saxon of the standard Anglo-Saxon authors, had undergone such a change as to induce the scholars of the present ago to denominate it, not Saxon, but Semi-Saxon. It had ceased to be genuine Saxon, but had not yet become English. Some, amongst others, of the earlier changes of the standard Anglo-Saxon are, 1. The substitution of -an for -as, in the plural of substantives, _munucan_ for _munucas_ (_monks_); and, conversely, the substitution of -s for -n, as _steorres_ for _steorran_ (_stars_). 2. The ejection or shortening of final vowels, _þæt ylc_ for _þæt ylce_; _sone_ for _sunu_; _name_ for _nama_; _dages_ for _dagas_. 3. The substitution of -n for -m in the dative case, _hwilon_ for _hwilum_. 4. The ejection of the -n of the infinitive mood, _cumme_ for _cuman_ (_to come_), _nemne_ for _nemnen_ (_to name_). 5. The ejection of -en in the participle passive, _I-hote_ for _gehaten_ (_called_, _hight_). 6. The gerundial termination -enne, superseded by the infinitive termination -en; as _to lufian_ for _to lufienne_, or _lufigenne_. 7. The substitution of -en for -að in the persons plural of verbs; _hi clepen_ (_they call_) for _hi clypiað_, &c. The preponderance (not the occasional occurrence) of forms like those above constitute _Semi-Saxon_ in contradistinction to standard Saxon, classical Saxon, or Anglo-Saxon proper. § 100. _Old English stage._--Further changes convert Semi-Saxon into Old English. Some, amongst others, are the following:-- 1. The ejection of the dative plural termination -um, and the substitution of the preposition to and the plural sign -s; as _to smiths_ for _smiðum_. Of the dative singular the -e is retained (_ende_, _worde_); but it is by no means certain that, although recognized in writing, it was equally recognized in pronunciation also. 2. The ejection of -es in the genitive singular whenever the preposition _of_ came before it; _Godes love_ (_God's love_), but the _love of God_, and not the _love of Godes_. 3. The syllable -es as a sign of the genitive case extended to all genders and to all declensions; _heart's_ for _heortan_; _sun's_ for _sunnan_. 4. The same in respect to the plural number; _sterres_ for _steorran_; _sons_ for _suna_. 5. The ejection of -na in the genitive plural; as _of tunges_ for _tungena_. 6. The use of the word _the_, as an article, instead of _se_, &c. The _preponderance_ of the forms above (and not their mere occasional occurrence) constitutes _Old English_ in contradistinction to Semi-Saxon. § 101. In the Old English the following forms predominate. 1. A fuller inflection of the demonstrative pronoun, or definite article; _þan_, _þenne_, _þære_, _þam_;--in contradistinction to the Middle English. 2. The presence of the dative singular in -e; _ende_, _smithe_. 3. The existence of a genitive plural in -r or -ra; _heora_, theirs; _aller_, of all. This, with substantives and adjectives, is less common. 4. The substitution of _heo_ for _they_, of _heora_ for _their_, of _hem_ for _them_. 5. A more frequent use of _min_ and _thin_, for _my_ and _thy_;--in contradistinction to both Middle and Modern English. 6. The use of _heo_ for _she_;--in contradistinction to Middle and Modern English and Old Lowland _Scotch_. 7. The use of broader vowels; as in _iclepud_ or _iclepod_ (for _icleped_ or _yclept_); _geongost_, youngest; _ascode_, asked; _eldore_, elder. 8. The use of the strong preterits (_see_ the chapter on the tenses of verbs), where in the present English the weak form is found--_wex_, _wop_, _dalf_, for _waxed_, _wept_, _delved_. 9. The omission not only of the gerundial termination -enne, but also of the infinitive sign -en after _to_; _to honte_, _to speke_;--in contradistinction to Semi-Saxon. 10. The substitution of -en for -eþ or -eð, in the first and second persons plural of verbs; _we wollen_, we will: _heo schullen_, they should. 11. The comparative absence of the articles _se_ and _seo_. 12. The substitution of _ben_ and _beeth_, for _synd_ and _syndon_ = _we_, _ye_, _they are_. § 102. Concerning the extent to which the Anglo-Norman was used, I retail the following statements and quotations. 1. "Letters even of a private nature were written in Latin till the beginning of the reign of Edward I., soon after 1270, when a sudden change brought in the use of French."--_Mr. Hallam, communicated by Mr. Stevenson_ (_Literature of Europe_, i. 52, _and note_). 2. Conversation between the members of the Universities was ordered to be carried on either in Latin or French:--"_Si qua inter se proferant, colloquio Latino vel saltem Gallico perfruantur._"--_Statutes of Oriel College, Oxford._--_Hallam, ibid._ from Warton. 3. "The Minutes of the Corporation of London, recorded in the Town Clerk's Office, were in French, as well as the Proceedings in Parliament, and in the Courts of Justice."--_Ibid._ 4. "In Grammar Schools, boys were made to construe their Latin into French."--_Ibid._ "_Pueri in scholis, contra morem cæterarum 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). § 103. The reigns of Edward III., and Richard II., may be said to form a transition from the _Old_ to the _Middle_; those of Mary and Elizabeth from the _Middle_ to the _New_, _Recent_ or _Modern English_. No very definite line of demarcation, however, can be drawn. § 104. The _present_ tendencies of the English may be determined by observation: and as most of them will be noticed in the etymological part of this volume, the few here indicated must be looked upon as illustrations only. 1. The distinction between the subjunctive and indicative mood is likely to pass away. We verify this by the very general tendency to say _if it is_, and _if he speaks_, rather than _if it be_, and _if he speak_. 2. The distinction between the participle passive and the past tense is likely to pass away. We verify this by the tendency to say _it is broke_, and _he is smote_, for _it is broken_ and _he is smitten_. 3. Of the double forms, _sung_ and _sang_, _drank_ and _drunk_, &c., one only will be the permanent. As stated above, these tendencies are but a few out of many, and have been adduced in order to indicate the subject rather than to exhaust it. * * * * * QUESTIONS. 1. Classify the Celtic elements of the English language. 2. Enumerate the chief periods during which words from the Latin were introduced into English, and classify the Latin elements accordingly. 3. What words were introduced _directly_ by the Danes, Scandinavians, or Norsemen? What _indirectly_? Through what language did these latter come? 4. Give the dates of the Battle of Hastings, and of the reigns of Louis Outremer, Ethelred II, and Edward the Confessor. What was the amount of Norman-French elements in England anterior to the Conquest? 5. Give the languages from whence the following words were introduced into the English--_flannel_, _jerked_ (as to _beef_), _hammock_, _apparatus_, _waltz_, _Seraph_, _plaid_, _street_, _muslin_. 6. Distinguish between the _direct_, _indirect_, and _ultimate_ origin of introduced words. What words have we in English which are supposed to have _originated_ in the Ancient Ægyptian, the Syrian, and the languages of Asia Minor? 7. Under what different forms do the following words appear in English--_monasterium_, [Greek: presbuteros], [Greek: episkopos]. Account for these differences. _Syrup_, _shrub_, and _sherbet_, all originate from the same word. Explain the present difference. 8. Give the _direct_ origin (i.e., the languages from which they were _immediately_ introduced) of--_Druid_, _epistle_, _chivalry_, _cyder_, _mæander_. Give the _indirect_ origin of the same. 9. Investigate the process by which a word like _sparrow-grass_, apparently of _English_ origin, is, in reality, derived from the Latin word _asparagus_. Point out the incorrectness in the words _frontispiece_, _colleague_, and _lanthorn_. 10. To what extent may _Norse_, and to what extent may _Celtic_ words, not found in the current language of English, be found in the provincial dialects? 11. What were the original names of the towns _Whitby_ and _Derby_? From what language are the present names derived? Give the reason for your answer. 12. Show the extent to which the _logical_ and _historical_ analyses coincide in respect to the words introduced from the Roman of the second period, the Arabic, the Anglo-Norman, and the Celtic of the current English. 13. What are the plural forms of _criterion_, _axis_, _genius_, _index_, _dogma_? When is a word introduced from a foreign language _perfectly_, when _imperfectly_ incorporated with the language into which it is imported? Is the following expression correct--_the cherubim that singeth aloft_? If not, why? 14. What is there exceptionable in the words _semaphore_ (meaning a sort of telegraph), and _witticism_. Give the etymologies of the words _icicle_, _radicle_, and _radical_. 15. What are the singular forms of _cantharides_, _phænomena_, and _data_? 16. What are the stages of the English language? How does the present differ from the older ones? 17. Exhibit in detail the inflections of the Anglo-Saxon a) noun, and b) verb, which are not found in the present English. What is the import of the loss of inflections, and their replacement by separate words? What is the nature of such words in nouns? What in verbs? 18. Contrast the syntax of the Anglo-Saxon with the Modern English adjective. What is the English for the Anglo-Saxon words _wit_, _unc_, _incer_? 19. Express, in general terms, the chief points wherein a modern language differs from an ancient one: or, rather, the points wherein the different stages of the same language differ. 20. Investigate the influence of the Norman Conquest on the English. Explain the terms Semi-Saxon, Old English, and Middle English. Compare the stages of the English with those of the other Gothic tongues. 21. Give the Modern English for the following forms and expressions--_munucas_, _steorran_, _to lufienne_. What are the Anglo-Saxon forms of _munucan_, _steorres_, _i-hotte_, _clepen_? Translate the Latin word _omnium_ (genitive plural of _omnis_) into _Old_ English. Translate the Greek [Greek: ho], [Greek: hê], [Greek: to] into Anglo-Saxon, Old English, and Modern English. 22. Investigate the extent to which the Anglo-Norman superseded the Anglo-Saxon subsequent to the Conquest. Is any further change in the grammatical structure of our language probable? If so, what do you consider will be the nature of it? * * * * * PART III. SOUNDS, LETTERS, PRONUNCIATION, SPELLING. * * * * * CHAPTER I. GENERAL NATURE AND CERTAIN PROPERTIES OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS. § 105. To two points connected with the subject of the following chapter, the attention of the reader is requested. a. In the comparison of sounds the ear is liable to be misled by the eye. Thus-- The syllables ka and ga are similar syllables. The vowel is in each the same, and the consonant is but slightly different. Hence the words ka and ga are more allied to each other than the words ka and ba, ka and ta, &c., because the consonantal sounds of k and g are more allied than the consonantal sounds of k and b, k and t. Comparing the syllables ga and ka, we see the affinity between the sounds, and we see it at the first glance. It lies on the surface, and strikes the ear at once. It is, however, very evident that ways might be devised or might arise from accident, of concealing the likeness between the two sounds, or, at any rate, of making it less palpable. One of such ways would be a faulty mode of spelling. If instead of ga we wrote gha the following would be the effect: the syllable would appear less simple than it really was; it would look as if it consisted of three parts instead of two, and consequently its affinity to ka would seem less than it really was. It is perfectly true that a little consideration would tell us that, as long as the sound remained the same, the relation of the two syllables remained the same also; and that, if the contrary appeared to be the case, the ear was misled by the eye. Still a little consideration would be required. Now in the English language we have (amongst others) the following modes of spelling that have a tendency to mislead;-- The sounds of ph and of f, in _Philip_ and _fillip_, differ to the eye, but to the ear are identical. Here a difference is simulated. The sounds of th in _thin_, and of th in _thine_, differ to the ear but to the eye seem the same. Here a difference is concealed. Furthermore. These last sounds appear to the eye to be double or compound. This is not the case; they are simple single sounds, and not the sounds of t followed by h, as the spelling leads us to imagine. b. Besides improper modes of spelling, there is another way of concealing the true nature of sounds. If I say that ka and ga are allied, the alliance is manifest; since I compare the actual _sounds_. If I say _ka_ and _gee_ are allied, the alliance is concealed; since I compare, not the actual sounds, but only the _names of the letters_ that express those sounds. Now in the English language we have (amongst others) the following names of letters that have a tendency to mislead:-- The sounds fa and va are allied. The names _eff_ and _vee_ conceal this alliance. The sounds sa and za are allied. The names _ess_ and _zed_ conceal the alliance. In comparing sounds it is advisable to have nothing to do either with letters or names of letters. Compare the sounds themselves. § 106. In many cases it is sufficient, in comparing consonants, to compare syllables that contain those consonants; e.g., in order to determine the relations of p, b, f, v, we say pa, ba, fa, va; or for those of s and z, we say sa, za. Here we compare _syllables_, each consonant being followed by a vowel. At times this is insufficient. We are often obliged to isolate the consonant from its vowel, and bring our organs to utter (or half utter) the imperfect sounds of p', b', t', d'. § 107. Let any of the _vowels_ (for instance, the a in _father_) be sounded. The lips, the tongue, and the parts within the throat remain in the same position; and as long as these remain in the same position the sound is that of the vowel under consideration. Let, however, a change take place in the position of the organs of sound; let, for instance, the lips be closed, or the tongue be applied to the front part of the mouth: in that case the vowel sound is cut short. It undergoes a change. It terminates in a sound that is different, according to the state of those organs whereof the position has been changed. If, on the vowel in question, the lips be closed, there then arises an imperfect sound of b or p. If on the other hand, the tongue be applied to the front teeth, or to the forepart of the palate, the sound is one (more or less imperfect) of t or d. This fact illustrates the difference between the vowels and the consonants. It may be verified by pronouncing the a in _fate_, ee in _feet_, oo in _book_, o in _note_, &c. It is a further condition in the formation of a vowel sound, that the passage of the breath be uninterrupted. In the sound of the l' in _lo_ (isolated from its vowel) the sound is as continuous as it is with the a in _fate_. Between, however, the consonant l and the vowel a there is this difference: with a, the passage of the breath is uninterrupted; with l, the tongue is applied to the palate, breaking or arresting the passage of the breath. § 108. The primary division of our articulate sounds is into vowels and consonants. The latter are again divided into liquids (l, m, n, r) and mutes (p, b, f, v, t, d, k, g, s, z, &c.). § 109. _Sharp and flat._--Take the sounds of p, f, t, k, s. Isolate them from their vowels, and pronounce them. The sound is the sound of a whisper. Let b, v, d, g, z, be similarly treated. The sound is no whisper, but one at the natural tone of our voice. Now p, f, t, k, s (with some others that will be brought forward anon) are _sharp_, whilst b, v, &c., are _flat_. Instead of _sharp_, some say _hard_, and instead of _flat_, some say _soft_. The terms _sonant_ and _surd_ are, in a scientific point of view, the least exceptionable. They have, however, the disadvantage of being pedantic. The _tenues_ of the classics (as far as they go) are sharp, the _mediæ_ flat. § 110. _Continuous and explosive._--Isolate the sounds of b, p, t, d, k, g. Pronounce them. You have no power of prolonging the sounds, or of resting upon them. They escape with the breath, and they escape at once. It is not so with f, v, sh, zh. Here the breath is transmitted by degrees, and the sound can be drawn out and prolonged for an indefinite space of time. Now b, p, t, &c., are explosive, f, v, &c., continuous. § 111. Concerning the vowels, we may predicate a) that they are all continuous, b) that they are all flat. Concerning the liquids, we may predicate a) that they are all continuous, b) that they are all flat. Concerning the mutes, we may predicate a) that one half of them is flat, and the other half sharp, and b) that some are continuous, and that others are explosive. § 112.--The letter h is no _articulate_ sound, but only a breathing. * * * * * CHAPTER II. SYSTEM OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS. § 113.--The attention of the reader is now directed to the following _foreign_ vowel sounds. 1. The _é fermé_, of the French.--This is a sound allied to, but different from, the a in _fate_, and the ee in _feet_. It is intermediate to the two. 2. The u of the French, ü of the Germans, y of the Danes.--This sound is intermediate to the ee in _feet_, and the oo in _book_. 3. The _o chiuso_, of the Italians.--Intermediate to the o in _note_, and the oo in _book_. For these sounds we have the following sequences: a in _fate_, _é fermé_, ee in _feet_, ü in _übel_ (German), oo in _book_, _o chiuso_, o in _note_. And this is the true order of alliance among the vowels; a in _fate_, and o in _note_, being the extremes; the other sounds being transitional or intermediate. As the English orthography is at once singular and faulty, it exhibits the relationship but imperfectly. § 114. _The system of the mutes._--Preliminary to the consideration of the system of the mutes, let it be observed:-- 1. that the th in _thin_ is a simple single sound, different from the th in _thine_, and that it may be expressed by the sign þ. 2. That the th in _thine_ is a simple single sound, different from the th in _thin_, and that it may be expressed by the sign ð. 3. That the sh in _shine_ is a simple single sound, and that it may be expressed by the sign [sigma][42] (Greek [Greek: sigma]). 4. That the z in _azure_, _glazier_ (French j) is a simple single sound, and that it may be expressed by the sign [zeta][42] (Greek [Greek: zêta]). 5. That in the Laplandic, and possibly in many other languages, there are two peculiar sounds, different from any in English, German, and French, &c., and that they may respectively be expressed by the sign [kappa] and the sign [gamma][42] (Greek [Greek: kappa] and [Greek: gamma]). § 115. With these preliminary notices we may exhibit the system of the sixteen mutes; having previously determined the meaning of two fresh terms, and bearing in mind what was said concerning the words _sharp_ and _flat_, _continuous_ and _explosive_. _Lene and aspirate._--From the sound of p in _pat_, the sound of f in _fat_ differs in a certain degree. This difference is not owing to a difference in their sharpness or flatness. Each is sharp. Neither is it owing to a difference in their continuity or explosiveness; although f is continuous, whilst p is explosive. This we may ascertain by considering the position of s. The sound of s is _continuous_; yet s, in respect to the difference under consideration, is classed not with f the continuous sound but with p the explosive one. This difference, which has yet to be properly elucidated, is expressed by a particular term; and p is called _lene_, f is called _aspirate_. As f is to p so is v to b. As v is to b so is þ to t. As þ is to t so is ð to d. As ð 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, þ, ð, [kappa], [gamma], [sigma], [zeta], are _aspirate_. Also p, f, t, þ, k, [kappa], s, [sigma], are _sharp_, whilst b, v, d, ð, g, [gamma], z, [zeta], are _flat_; so that there is a double series of relationship capable of being expressed as follows:-- _Lene._ _Aspirate._ | _Sharp._ _Flat._ Sharp. Flat. Sharp. Flat. | Lene. Aspirate. Lene. Aspirate. p b f v | p f b v t d þ ð | t þ d ð k g [kappa] [gamma] | k [kappa] g [gamma] s z [sigma] [zeta] | s [sigma] z [zeta] All the so-called aspirates are continuous; and, with the exception of s and z, all the lenes are explosive. § 116. I believe that in the fact of each mute appearing in a four-fold form (i.e., sharp, or flat, lene, or aspirate), lies the essential character of the mutes as opposed to the liquids. § 117. Y and w.--These sounds, respectively intermediate to [gamma] and i (the ee in _feet_), and to v and u (oo in _book_), form a transition from the vowels to the consonants. § 118. The French word _roi_, and the English words _oil_, _house_, are specimens of a fresh class of articulations; viz., of _compound vowel_ sounds or diphthongs. The diphthong oi is the vowel o + the semivowel y. The diphthongal sound in _roi_ is the vowel o + the semivowel w. In _roi_ the semivowel element precedes, in _oil_ it follows. § 119. The words quoted indicate the nature of the diphthongal system. 1. Diphthongs with the semivowel w, a) _preceding_, as in the French word _roi_, b) _following_, as in the English word _new_. 2. Diphthongs with the semivowel y, a) _preceding_, as is common in the languages of the Lithuanic and Slavonic stocks, b) _following_, as in the word _oil_. 3. Triphthongs with a semivowel both _preceding_ and _following_. The diphthongs in English are four; ow as in _house_, ew as in _new_, oi as in _oil_, i as in _bite_, _fight_. § 120. _Chest_, _jest_.--Here we have _compound consonantal_ sounds. The ch in _chest_ = t + sh; the j in _jest_ = d + zh. I believe that in these combinations one or both the elements, viz., t and sh, d and zh, are modified; but I am unable to state the exact nature of this modification. § 121. Ng.--The sound of the ng in _sing_, _king_, _throng_, when at the end of a word, or of _singer_, _ringing_, &c., in the middle of a word, is not the natural sound of the combination n and g, each letter retaining its natural power and sound; but a simple single sound, for which the combination ng is a conventional mode of expression. § 122. Compared with a in _fate_, and the o in _note_, a in _father_, and the aw in _bawl_, are _broad_; the vowels of _note_ and _fate_ being _slender_. § 123. In _fat_, the vowel is, according to common parlance, _short_; in _fate_, it is _long_. Here we have the introduction of two fresh terms. For the words _long_ and _short_, I substitute _independent_ and _dependent_. If from the word _fate_ I separate the final consonantal sound, the syllable fa remains. In this syllable the a has precisely the sound that it had before. It remains unaltered. The removal of the consonant has in nowise modified its sound or power. It is not so, however, with the vowel in the word _fat_. If from this I remove the consonant following, and so leave the a at the end of the syllable, instead of in the middle, I must do one of two things: I must sound it either as the a in _fate_, or else as the a in _father_. Its (so-called) short sound it cannot retain, unless it be supported by a consonant following. For this reason it is _dependent_. The same is the case with all the so-called short sounds, viz., the e in _bed_, i in _fit_, u in _bull_, o in _not_, u in _but_. § 124. It is not every vowel that is susceptible of every modification. I (ee) and u (oo) are incapable of becoming _broad_. The e in _bed_, although both broad and slender, is incapable of becoming _independent_. For the u in _but_, and for the ö of certain foreign languages, I have no satisfactory systematic position. § 125. _Vowel System._ _Broad._ _Slender._ _Independent._ || _Independent._ | _Dependent._ a, in _father_ || a, in _fate_ | a, in _fat_. || é in _fermé_, | é, in _fermé_, || _long_ | _short_. e, in _meine_, Germ. || | e, in _bed_. || ee, in _feet_ | i, _pit_. || ü, of the German, | the same, _short_. || _long_ | || oo, in _book_ | ou, in _could_. || o in _chiuso_ | the same, _short_. aw, in _bawl_ || o, in _note_ | o, in _not_. From these the semivowels w and y make a transition to the consonants v and the so-called aspirate of g, respectively. § 126. _System of Consonants._ Liquids. Mutes. Semivowels. || Lene. | Aspirate. || || Sharp. Flat. | Sharp. Flat. || || | || m || p v | f v || w n || t d | þ ð || . l || k g |[kappa] [gamma] || y r || s z |[sigma] [zeta] || . n is doubled in _unnatural_, _innate_, _oneness_. l -- _soulless_, _civil-list_, _palely_. k -- _book-case_. t -- _seaport-town_. It must not, however, be concealed, that, in the mouths even of correct speakers, one of the doubled sounds is often dropped. § 132. _True aspirates rare._--The criticism applied to words like _pitted_, &c., applies also to words like _Philip_, _thin_, _thine_, &c. There is therein no sound of h. How the so-called aspirates differ from their corresponding lenes has not yet been determined. That it is _not_ by the addition of h is evident. Ph and th are conventional modes of spelling simple single sounds, which might better be expressed by simple single signs. In our own language the _true_ aspirates, like the true reduplications, are found only in compound words; and there they are often slurred in the pronunciation. We find p and h in the words _haphazard_, _upholder_. -- b and h -- _abhorrent_, _cub-hunting_. -- f and h -- _knife-handle_, _off hand_. -- v and h -- _stave-head_. -- d and h -- _adhesive_, _childhood_. -- t and h -- _nuthook_. -- th and h -- _withhold_. -- k and h -- _inkhorn_, _bakehouse_. -- g and h -- _gig-horse_. -- s and h -- _race-horse_, _falsehood_. -- z and h -- _exhibit_, _exhort_. -- r and h -- _perhaps_. -- l and h -- _wellhead_, _foolhardy_. -- m and h -- _Amherst_. -- n and h -- _unhinge_, _inherent_, _unhappy_. * * * * * CHAPTER IV. EUPHONY AND THE PERMUTATION OF LETTERS. § 133. 1. Let there be two syllables of which the one ends in m, and the other begins with r, as we have in the syllables num- and -rus of the Latin word _numerus_. 2. Let an ejection of the intervening letters bring these two syllables into immediate contact, _numrus_. The m and r form an unstable combination. To remedy this there is a tendency to insert an intervening sound. In English, the form which the Latin word _numerus_ takes is _number_; in Spanish, _nombre_. The b makes no part of the original word, but has been inserted for the sake of _euphony_; or, to speak more properly, by a euphonic process. The word euphony is derived from [Greek: eu] (_well_), and [Greek: phônê] (_fônæ_, a voice). § 134. In the words _give_ and _gave_ we have a change of tense expressed by a change of vowel. In the words _price_ and _prize_ a change of meaning is expressed by a change of consonant. In _clothe_ and _clad_ there is a change both of a vowel and of a consonant. In the words _to use_ and _a use_ there is a similar change, although it is not expressed by the spelling. To the ear the verb _to use_ ends in z, although not to the eye. All these are instances of the _permutation_ of letters. _Permutation of Vowels._ a to [)e], as _man_, _men_. a to oo, as _stand_, _stood_. a to u, as _dare_, _durst_. a to [=e], as _was_, _were_. ea to o, as _speak_, _spoken_. ea = [)e] to ea = [=e], as _breath_, _breathe_. ee to [)e], as _deep_, _depth_. ea to o, as _bear_, _bore_. i to a, as _spin_, _span_. i to u, as _spin_, _spun_. [=i] = ei to o, as _smite_, _smote_. i = ei to [)i], as _smite_, _smitten_. i to a, as _give_, _gave_. i = ei to a, as _rise_, _raise_. [)i] to e, as _sit_, _set_. ow to ew, as _blow_, _blew_. o to e, as _strong_, _strength_. oo to ee, as _tooth_, _teeth_. o to i, as _top_, _tip_. o to e, as _old_, _elder_; _tell_, _told_. [)o] to e, as _brother_, _brethren_. [=o] = oo to i, as _do_, _did_. o = oo to o = [)u], as _do_, _done_. oo to o, as _choose_, _chose_. _Permutation of Consonants._ f to v, _life_, _live_; _calf_, _calves_. þ to ð, _breath_, _to breathe_. þ to d, _seethe_, _sod_; _clothe_, _clad_. d to t, _build_, _built_. s to z, _use_, _to use_. s to r, _was_, _were_; _lose_, _forlorn_. In _have_ and _had_ we have the _ejection_ of a sound; in _work_ and _wrought_, the _transposition_ of one. _Permutation of Combinations._ ie = i to ow, as _grind_, _ground_. ow to i = ei, as _mouse_, _mice_; _cow_, _kine_. ink to augh, as _drink_, _draught_. ing to ough, as _bring_, _brought_. y (formerly g), to ough, as _buy_, _bought_. igh = ei to ough, as _fight_, _fought_. eek to ough, as _seek_, _sought_. It must be noticed that the list above is far from being an exhaustive one. The expression too of the changes undergone has been rendered difficult on account of the imperfection of our orthography. The whole section has been written in illustration of the meaning of the word _permutation_, rather than for any specific object in grammar. * * * * * CHAPTER V. ON THE FORMATION OF SYLLABLES. § 135. In respect to the formation of syllables, I am aware of no more than one point that requires any especial consideration. In certain words, of more than one syllable, it is difficult to say to which syllable an intervening consonant belongs. For instance, does the v in _river_, and the e in _fever_, belong to the first or the second syllable? Are the words to be divided thus, _ri-ver_, _fe-ver_? or thus, _riv-er_, _feve-r_? The solution of the question lies by no means on the surface. In the first place, the case is capable of being viewed in two points of view--an etymological and a phonetic one. That the c and r in _become_, _berhymed_, &c., belong to the second syllable, we determine at once by taking the words to pieces; whereby we get the words _come_ and _rhymed_ in an isolated independent form. But this fact, although it settles the point in etymology, leaves it as it was in phonetics; since it in nowise follows, that, because the c in the _simple_ word _come_ is exclusively attached to the letter that succeeds, it is, in the _compound_ word _become_, exclusively attached to it also. To the following point of structure in the consonantal sounds the reader's attention is particularly directed. 1. Let the vowel a (as in _fate_) be sounded.--2. Let it be followed by the consonant p, so as to form the syllable _[=a]p_. To form the sound of p, it will be found that the lips close on the sound of a, and arrest it. Now, if the lips be left to themselves they will not _remain_ closed on the sound, but will open again; in a slight degree indeed, but in a degree sufficient to cause a kind of vibration, or, at any rate, to allow an escape of the remainder of the current of breath by which the sound was originally formed. To re-open in a slight degree is the natural tendency of the lips in the case exhibited above. Now, by an effort, let this tendency to re-open be counteracted. Let the remaining current of breath be cut short. We have, then, only this, viz., so much of the syllable _[=a]p_ as can be formed by the _closure_ of the lips. All that portion of it that is caused by their re-opening is deficient. The resulting sound seems truncated, cut short, or incomplete. It is the sound of p, _minus_ the remnant of breath. All of the sound p that is now left is formed, not by the _escape_ of the breath, but by the _arrest_ of it. The p in [=a]p is a _final_ sound. With initial sounds the case is different. Let the lips be _closed_, and let an attempt be made to form the syllable pa by suddenly opening them. The sound appears incomplete; but its incompleteness is at the _beginning_ of the sound, and not at the end of it. In the natural course of things there would have been a current of breath _preceding_, and this current would have given a vibration, now wanting. All the sound that is formed here is formed, not by the _arrest_ of breath, but by the _escape_ of it. I feel that this account of the mechanism of the apparently simple sound p, labours under all the difficulties that attend the _description_ of a sound; and for this reason I again request the reader to satisfy himself either of its truth or of its inaccuracy, before he proceeds to the conclusions that will be drawn from it. The account, however, being recognized, we have in the sound of p, two elements:-- 1. That formed by the current of air and the closure of the lips, as in ap. This may be called the sound of breath _arrested_. 2. That formed by the current of air, and the opening of the lips, as in pa. This may be called the sound of breath _escaping_. Now what may be said of p may be said of all the other consonants, the words _tongue_, _teeth_, &c., being used instead of _lips_, according to the case. Let the sound of breath _arrested_ be expressed by [pi], and that of breath _escaping_ be expressed by [varpi], the two together form p ([pi] + [varpi] = p). Thus ap (as quoted above) is p - [varpi], or [pi]; whilst pa (sounded similarly) is p - [pi], or [varpi]. In the formation of syllables, I consider that the sound of breath arrested belongs to the first, and the sound of breath escaping to the second syllable; that if each sound were expressed by a separate sign, the word _happy_ would be divided thus, _ha[pi]-[varpi]y_; and that such would be the case with all consonants between two syllables. The _whole_ consonant belongs neither to one syllable nor the other. Half of it belongs to each. The reduplication of the p in _happy_, the t in _pitted_, &c., is a mere point of spelling. * * * * * CHAPTER VI. ON QUANTITY. § 136. The dependent vowels, as the a in _fat_, i in _fit_, u in _but_, o in _not_, have the character of being uttered with rapidity, and they pass quickly in the enunciation, the voice not resting on them. This rapidity of utterance becomes more evident when we contrast with them the prolonged sounds of the a in _fate_, ee in _feet_, oo in _book_, or o in _note_; wherein the utterance is retarded, and wherein the voice rests, delays, or is prolonged. The f and t of _fate_ are separated by a longer interval than the f and t of _fat_; and the same is the case with _fit_, _feet_, &c. Let the n and the t of _not_ be each as 1, the o also being as 1; then each letter, consonant or vowel, shall constitute 1/3 of the whole word. Let, however, the n and the t of _note_ be each as 1, the o being as 2. Then, instead of each consonant constituting 1/3 of the whole word, it shall constitute but ¼. Upon the comparative extent to which the voice is prolonged, the division of vowels and syllables into _long_ and _short_ has been established: the o in _note_ being long, the o in _not_ being short. And the longness or shortness of a vowel or syllable is said to be its _quantity_. § 137. Attention is directed to the word _vowel_. The longness or shortness of a _vowel_ is one thing. The longness or shortness of a _syllable_ another. This difference is important in prosody; especially in comparing the English with the classical metres. The vowel in the syllable _see_ is long; and long it remains, whether it stand as it is, or be followed by a consonant, as in _see-n_, or by a vowel, as in _see-ing_. The vowel in the word _sit_ is short. If followed by a vowel it becomes unpronounceable, except as the ea in _seat_ or the i in _sight_. By a consonant, however, it _may_ be followed. Such is the case in the word quoted--_sit_. Followed by a _second_ consonant, it still retains its shortness, e.g., _sits_. Whatever the comparative length of the _syllables_, _see_ and _seen_, _sit_ and _sits_, may be, the length of their respective _vowels_ is the same. Now, if we determine the character of the syllable by the character of the vowel, all syllables are short wherein there is a short vowel, and all are long wherein there is a long one. Hence, measured by the quantity of the vowel, the word _sits_ is short, and the syllable _see-_ in _seeing_ is long. § 138. But it is well known that this view is not the view commonly taken of the syllables _see_ (in _seeing_) and _sits_. It is well known, that, in the eyes of a classical scholar, the _see_ (in _seeing_) is short, and that in the word _sits_ the i is long. The classic differs from the Englishman thus,--_He measures his quantity, not by the length of the vowel, but by the length of the syllable taken altogether._ The perception of this distinction enables us to comprehend the following statements. a. That vowels long by nature may _appear_ to become short by position, and _vice versâ_. b. That, by a laxity of language, the _vowel_ may be said to have changed its quantity, whilst it is the _syllable_ alone that has been altered. c. That if one person measures his quantities by the vowels, and another by the syllables, what is short to the one, shall be long to the other, and _vice versâ_. The same is the case with nations. d. That one of the most essential differences between the English and the classical languages is that the quantities (as far as they go) of the first are measured by the vowel, those of the latter by the syllable. To a Roman the word _monument_ consists of two short syllables and one long one; to an Englishman it contains three short syllables. * * * * * CHAPTER VII. ON ACCENT. § 139. In the word _tyrant_ there is an emphasis, or stress, upon the first syllable. In the word _presume_ there is an emphasis, or stress, on the second syllable. This emphasis, or stress, is called _accent_. The circumstance of a syllable bearing an accent is sometimes expressed by a mark ('); in which case the word is said to be accentuated, i.e., to have the accent signified in writing. Words accented on the last syllable--_Brigáde_, _preténce_, _harpoón_, _reliéve_, _detér_, _assúme_, _besóught_, _beréft_, _befóre_, _abroád_, _abóde_, _abstrúse_, _intermíx_, _superádd_, _cavaliér_. Words accented on the last syllable but one--_An'chor_, _ar'gue_, _hásten_, _fáther_, _fóxes_, _smíting_, _húsband_, _márket_, _vápour_, _bárefoot_, _archángel_, _bespátter_, _disáble_, _terrífic_. Words accented on the last syllable but two--_Reg'ular_, _an'tidote_, _for'tify_, _suscéptible_, _incontrovértible_. Words accented on the last syllable but three (rare)--_Réceptacle_, _régulating_, _tálkativeness_, _ábsolutely_, _lúminary_, _inévitable_, &c. § 140. A great number of words are distinguished by the difference of accent alone. An _áttribute_. To _attríbute_. The month _Aúgust_. An _augúst_ person. A _com'pact_. _Compáct_ (close). To _con'jure_ (magically). _Conjúre_ (enjoin). _Des'ert_, wilderness. _Desért_, merit. _Inválid_, not valid. _Invalíd_, a sickly person. _Mínute_, 60 seconds. _Minúte_, small. _Súpine_, part of speech. _Supíne_, careless, &c. § 141. In _týrant_ and _presúme_, we deal with single words; and in each _word_ we determine which _syllable_ is accented. Contrasted with the sort of accent that follows, this may be called a _verbal_ accent. In the line, Better for _us_, perhaps, it might appear, (Pope's "Essay on Man," I. 169.) the pronoun _us_ is strongly brought forward. An especial stress or emphasis is laid upon it, denoting that _there are other beings to whom it might not appear_, &c. This is collected from the context. Here there is a _logical_ accent. "When one word in a sentence is distinguished by a stress, as more important than the rest, we may say that it is _emphatical_, or that an _emphasis_ is laid upon it. When one syllable in a word is distinguished by a stress, and more audible than the rest, we say that it is accented, or that an accent is put upon it. Accent, therefore, is to syllables what emphasis is to sentences; it distinguishes one from the crowd, and brings it forward to observation."--Nares' "Orthoepy," part ii. chap. 1. * * * * * CHAPTER VIII. ORTHOGRAPHY. § 142. _Orthoepy_, a word derived from the Greek _orthon_ (_upright_), and _epos_ (_a word_), signifies the right utterance of words. Orthoepy determines words, and deals with a language as it is _spoken_; _orthography_ determines the correct spelling of words, and deals with a language as it is _written_. This latter term is derived from the Greek words _orthos_ (_upright_), and _graphé_, or _grafæ_ (_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. § 143. A full and perfect system of orthography consists in two things:--1. The possession of a sufficient and consistent alphabet. 2. The right application of such an alphabet. This position may be illustrated more fully. § 144. First, in respect to a sufficient and consistent alphabet--Let there be in a certain language, simple single articulate sounds, to the number of forty, whilst the simple single signs, or letters, expressive of them, amount to no more than _thirty_. In this case the alphabet is insufficient. It is not full enough: since ten of the simple single articulate sounds have no corresponding signs whereby they may be expressed. In our own language, the sounds (amongst others) of th in _thin_, and of th in _thine_, are simple and single, whilst there is no sign equally simple and single to spell them with. § 145. An alphabet, however, may be sufficient, and yet imperfect. It may err on the score of inconsistency. Let there be in a given language two simple single sounds, (for instance) the p in _pate_, and the f in _fate_. Let these sounds stand in a given relation to each other. Let a given sign, for instance, [Hebrew: P] (as is actually the case in Hebrew), stand for the p in _pate_; and let a second sign be required for the f in _fate_. Concerning the nature of this latter sign, two views may be taken. One framer of the alphabet, perceiving that the two sounds are mere modifications of each other, may argue that no new sign (or letter) is at all necessary, but that the sound of f in _fate_ may be expressed by a mere modification of the sign (or letter) [Hebrew: P], and may be written thus [Hebrew: P·], or thus [Hebrew: P'] or [Hebrew: P`], &c. upon the principle that like sounds should be expressed by like signs. The other framer of the alphabet, contemplating the difference between the two sounds, rather than the likeness, may propose, not a mere modification of the sign [Hebrew: P], but a letter altogether new, such as f, or [Greek: ph], &c., upon the principle that sounds of a given degree of dissimilitude should be expressed by signs of a different degree of dissimilitude. Hitherto the expression of the sounds in point is a matter of convenience only. No question has been raised as to its consistency or inconsistency. This begins under conditions like the following:--Let there be in the language in point the sounds of the t in _tin_, and of the th in _thin_; which (it may be remembered) are precisely in the same relation to each other as the p in _pate_ and the f in _fate_. Let each of these sounds have a sign or letter expressive of it. Upon the nature of these signs, or letters, will depend the nature of the sign or letter required for the f in _fate_. If the letter expressing the th in _thin_ be a mere modification of the letter expressing the t in _tin_, then must the letter expressive of the f in _fate_ be a mere modification of the letter expressing the p in _pate_, and _vice versâ_. If this be not the case, the alphabet is inconsistent. In the English alphabet we have (amongst others) the following inconsistency:--The sound of the f in _fate_, in a certain relation to the sound of the p in _pate_, is expressed by a totally distinct sign; whereas, the sound of the th in _thin_ (similarly related to the t in _tin_) is expressed by no new sign, but by a mere modification of t; viz., th. § 146. A third element in the faultiness of an alphabet is the fault of erroneous representation. The best illustration of this we get from the Hebrew alphabet, where the sounds of [Hebrew: T] and [Hebrew: T`], mere _varieties_ of each other, are represented by distinct and dissimilar signs, whilst [Hebrew: T] and [Hebrew: T], sounds _specifically_ distinct, are expressed by a mere modification of the same sign, or letter. § 147. _The right application of an alphabet._--An alphabet may be both sufficient and consistent, accurate in its representation of the alliances between articulate sounds, and in no wise redundant; and yet, withal, it may be so wrongly applied as to be defective. Of defect in the use or application of the letters of an alphabet, the three main causes are the following:-- a. _Unsteadiness in the power of letters._--Of this there are two kinds. In the first, there is one sound with two (or more) ways of expressing it. Such is the sound of the letter f in English. In words of Anglo-Saxon origin it is spelt with a single simple sign, as in _fill_; whilst in Greek words it is denoted by a combination, as in _Philip_. The reverse of this takes place with the letter g; here a single sign has a double power; in _gibbet_ it is sounded as j, and in _gibberish_ as g in _got_. b. _The aim at secondary objects._--The natural aim of orthography, of spelling, or of writing, is to express the _sounds_ of a language. Syllables and words it takes as they meet the ear, it translates them by appropriate signs, and so paints them, as it were, to the eye. That this is the natural and primary object is self-evident; but beyond this natural and primary object there is, with the orthographical systems of most languages, a secondary one, viz., the attempt to combine with the representation of the sound of a given word, the representation of its history and origin. The sound of the c, in _city_, is the sound that we naturally spell with the letter s, and if the expression of this sound was the _only_ object of our orthographists, the word would be spelt accordingly (_sity_). The following facts, however, traverse this simple view of the matter. The word is a derived word; it is transplanted into our own language from the Latin, where it is spelt with a c (_civitas_); and to change this c into s conceals the origin and history of the word. For this reason the c is retained, although, as far as the mere expression of sounds (the primary object in orthography) is concerned, the letter is a superfluity. In cases like the one adduced the orthography is bent to a secondary end, and is traversed by the etymology. c. _Obsoleteness._--It is very evident that modes of spelling which at one time may have been correct, may, by a change of pronunciation, become incorrect; so that orthography becomes obsolete whenever there takes place a change of speech without a correspondent change of spelling. § 148. From the foregoing sections we arrive at the theory of a full and perfect alphabet and orthography, of which a few (amongst many others) of the chief conditions are as follow:-- 1. That for every simple single sound, incapable of being represented by a combination of letters, there be a simple single sign. 2. That sounds within a determined degree of likeness be represented by signs within a determined degree of likeness; whilst sounds beyond a certain degree of likeness be represented by distinct and different signs, _and that uniformly_. 3. That no sound have more than one sign to express it. 4. That no sign express more than one sound. 5. That the primary aim of orthography be to express the sounds of words, and not their histories. 6. That changes of speech be followed by corresponding changes of spelling. With these principles in our mind we may measure the imperfections of our own and of other alphabets. § 149. Previous to considering the sufficiency or insufficiency of the English alphabet, it is necessary to enumerate the elementary articulate sounds of the language. The vowels belonging to the English language are the following _twelve_:-- 1. That of a in _father_. 7. That of e -- _bed_. 2. -- a -- _fat_. 8. -- i -- _pit_. 3. -- a -- _fate_. 9. -- ee -- _feet_. 4. -- aw -- _bawl_. 10. -- u -- _bull_. 5. -- o -- _not_. 11. -- oo -- _fool_. 6. -- o -- _note_. 12. -- u -- _duck_. The diphthongal sounds are _four_. 1. That of ou in _house_. 2. -- ew -- _new_. 3. -- oi -- _oil_. 4. -- i -- _bite_. This last sound being most incorrectly expressed by the single letter i. The consonantal sounds are, 1. the two semivowels; 2. the four liquids; 3. fourteen out of the sixteen mutes; 4. ch in _chest_, and j in _jest_, compound sibilants; 5. ng, as in _king_; 6. the aspirate h. In all, twenty-four. 1. w as in _wet_. 13. th as in _thin_. 2. y -- _yet_. 14. th -- _thine_. 3. m -- _man_. 15. g -- _gun_. 4. n -- _not_. 16. k -- _kind_. 5. l -- _let_. 17. s -- _sin_. 6. r -- _run_. 18. z -- _zeal_. 7. p -- _pate_. 19. sh -- _shine_. 8. b -- _ban_. 20. z -- _azure, glazier_. 9. f -- _fan_. 21. ch -- _chest_. 10. v -- _van_. 22. j -- _jest_. 11. t -- _tin_. 23. ng -- _king_. 12. d -- _din_. 24. h -- _hot_. § 150. Some writers would add to these the additional sound of the _é fermé_ of the French; believing that the vowel in words like _their_ and _vein_ has a different sound from the vowel in words like _there_ and _vain_. For my own part I cannot detect such a difference either in my own speech or that of my neighbours; although I am far from denying that in certain _dialects_ of our language such may have been the case. The following is an extract from the "Danish Grammar for Englishmen," by Professor Rask, whose eye, in the matter in question, seems to have misled his ear; "The _é fermé_, or _close é_, is very frequent in Danish, but scarcely perceptible in English; unless in such words as _their_, _vein_, _veil_, which appear to sound a little different from _there_, _vain_, _vale_." § 151. The vowels being twelve, the diphthongs four, and the consonantal sounds twenty-four, we have altogether as many as forty sounds, some being so closely allied to each other as to be mere modifications, and others being combinations rather than simple sounds; all, however, agreeing in requiring to be expressed by letters or by combinations of letters, and to be distinguished from each other. This enables us to appreciate-- § 152. _The insufficiency of the English alphabet._-- a. _In respect to the vowels._--Notwithstanding the fact that the sounds of the a in _father_, _fate_, and _fat_, and of the o and the aw in _note_, _not_, and _bawl_, are modifications of a and o respectively, we have still _six_ vowel sounds specifically distinct, for which (y being a consonant rather than a vowel) we have but _five_ signs. The u in _duck_, specifically distinct from the u in _bull_, has no specifically distinct sign to represent it. b. _In respect to the consonants_.--The th in _thin_, the th in _thine_, the sh in _shine_, the z in _azure_, and the ng in _king_, five sounds specifically distinct, and five sounds perfectly simple require corresponding signs, which they have not. § 153. _Its inconsistency._--The f in _fan_, and the v in _van_, sounds in a certain degree of relationship to p and b, are expressed by sounds as unlike as f is unlike p, and as v is unlike b. The sound of the th in _thin_, the th in _thine_, the sh in _shine_, similarly related to t, d, and s, are expressed by signs as like t, d, and s, respectively, as th and sh. The compound sibilant sound of j in _jest_ is spelt with the single sign j, whilst the compound sibilant sound in _chest_ is spelt with the combination ch. § 154. _Erroneousness._--The sound of the ee in _feet_ is considered the long (independent) sound of the e in _bed_; whereas it is the long (independent) sound of the i in _pit_. The i in _bite_ is considered as the long (independent) sound of the i in _pit_; whereas it is a diphthongal sound. The u in _duck_ is looked upon as a modification of the u in _bull_; whereas it is a specifically distinct sound. The ou in _house_ and the oi in _oil_ are looked upon as the compounds of o and i and of o and u respectively; whereas the latter element of them is not i and u, but y and w. The th in _thin_ and the th in _thine_ are dealt with as one and the same sound; whereas they are sounds specifically distinct. The ch in _chest_ is dealt with as a modification of c (either with the power of k or of s); whereas its elements are t and sh. § 155. _Redundancy._--As far as the representation of sounds is concerned the letter c is superfluous. In words like _citizen_ it may be replaced by s; in words like _cat_ by k. In ch, as in _chest_, it has no proper place. In ch, as in _mechanical_, it may be replaced by k. Q is superfluous, cw or kw being its equivalent. X also is superfluous, ks, gz, or z, being equivalent to it. The diphthongal forms æ and oe, as in _Æneas_ and _Croesus_, except in the way of etymology, are superfluous and redundant. § 156. _Unsteadiness._--Here we have (amongst many other examples), 1. The consonant c with the double power of s and k; 2. g with its sound in _gun_ and also with its sound in _gin_; 3. x with its sounds in _Alexander_, _apoplexy_, _Xenophon_. In the foregoing examples a single sign has a double power; in the words _Philip_ and _filip_, &c. a single sound has a double sign. In respect to the degree wherein the English orthography is made subservient to etymology, it is sufficient to repeat the statement that as many as three letters c, æ, and oe are retained in the alphabet for _etymological purposes only_. § 157. The defects noticed in the preceding sections are _absolute_ defects, and would exist, as they do at present, were there no language in the world except the English. This is not the case with those that are now about to be noticed; for them, indeed, the word _defect_ is somewhat too strong a term. They may more properly be termed inconveniences. Compared with the languages of the rest of the world the use of many letters in the English alphabet is _singular_. The letter i (when long or independent) is, with the exception of England, generally sounded as ee. With Englishmen it has a diphthongal power. The inconvenience of this is the necessity that it imposes upon us, in studying foreign languages, of unlearning the sound which we give it in our own, and of learning the sound which it bears in the language studied. So it is (amongst many others) with the letter j. In English this has the sound of _dzh_, in French of zh, and in German of y. From singularity in the use of letters arises inconvenience in the study of foreign tongues. In using j as dzh there is a second objection. It is not only inconvenient, but it is theoretically incorrect. The letter j was originally a modification of the vowel i. The Germans, who used it as the semivowel y, have perverted it from its original power less than the English have done, who sound it dzh. With these views we may appreciate in the English alphabet and orthography-- _Its convenience or inconvenience in respect to learning foreign tongues._--The sound given to the a in _fate_ is singular. Other nations sound it as a in _father_. The sound given to the e, long (or independent), is singular. Other nations sound it either as a in _fate_, or as _é fermé_. The sound given to the i in _bite_ is singular. Other nations sound it as ee in _feet_. The sound given to the oo in _fool_ is singular. Other nations sound it as the o in _note_, or as the _ó chiuso_. The sound given to the u in _duck_ is singular. Other nations sound it as the u in _bull_. The sound given to the ou in _house_ is singular. Other nations, more correctly, represent it by au or aw. The sound given to the w in _wet_ is somewhat singular, but is also correct and convenient. With many nations it is not found at all, whilst with those where it occurs it has the sound (there or thereabouts) of v. The sound given to y is somewhat singular. In Danish it has a vowel power. In German the semivowel sound is spelt with j. The sound given to z is not the sound which it has in German and Italian, but its power in English is convenient and correct. The sound given to ch in _chest_ is singular. In other languages it has generally a guttural sound; in French that of sh. The English usage is more correct than the French, but less correct than the German. The sound given to j (as said before) is singular. § 158. _The historical propriety or impropriety of certain letters._--The use of i with a diphthongal power is not only singular and inconvenient, but also _historically incorrect_. The Greek _iota_, from whence it originates, has the sound of i and ee, as in _pit_ and _feet_. The y, sounded as in _yet_, is historically incorrect. It grew out of the Greek [upsilon], a vowel, and no semivowel. The Danes still use it as such, that is, with the power of the German ü. The use of j for dzh is historically incorrect. The use of c for k in words derived from the Greek as _mechanical_, _ascetic_, &c., is historically incorrect. The form c is the representative of [gamma] and [sigma] and not of the Greek _kappa_. § 159. _On certain conventional modes of spelling._--In the Greek language the sounds of o in _not_ and of o in _note_ (although allied) are expressed by the unlike signs (or letters) [omicron] and [omega], respectively. In most other languages the difference between the sounds is considered too slight to require for its expression signs so distinct and dissimilar. In some languages the difference is neglected altogether. In many, however, it is expressed, and that by some modification of the original letter. Let the sign (-) denote that the vowel over which it stands is long, or independent, whilst the sign (U) indicates shortness, or dependence. In such a case, instead of writing _not_ and _n[omega]t_, like the Greeks, we may write _n[)o]t_ and _n[=o]t_, the sign serving for a fresh letter. Herein the expression of the nature of the sound is natural, because the natural use of (-) and (U) is to express length or shortness, dependence or independence. Now, supposing the broad sound of o to be already represented, it is very evident that, of the other two sounds of o, the one must be long (independent), and the other short (dependent); and as it is only necessary to express one of these conditions, we may, if we choose, use the sign (-) alone; its presence denoting length, and its absence shortness (independence or dependence). As signs of this kind, one mark is as good as another; and instead of (-) we may, if we chose, substitute such a mark as (') and write _nót_ = _n[=o]t_ = _n[omega]t_ = _n[=o]te_; provided only that the sign (') expresses no other condition or affection of a sound. This use of the mark ('), as a sign that the vowel over which it is placed is long (independent), is common in many languages. But is this use of (') natural? For a reason that the reader has anticipated, it is not natural, but conventional. Neither is it convenient. It is used elsewhere not as the sign of _quantity_, but as the sign of _accent_; consequently, being placed over a letter, and being interpreted according to its natural meaning, it gives the idea, not that the syllable is long, but that it is emphatic or accented. Its use as a sign of quantity then, would be an orthographical expedient, or an inconvenient conventional mode of spelling. The English language abounds in orthographical expedients; the modes of expressing the quantity of the vowels being particularly numerous. To begin with these:-- The reduplication of a vowel where there is but one syllable (as in _feet_, _cool_), is an orthographical expedient. It merely means that the syllable is long (or independent). The juxtaposition of two different vowels, where there is but one syllable (as in _plain_, _moan_), is an orthographical expedient. It generally means the same as the reduplication of a vowel, i.e., that the syllable is long (independent). The addition of the e mute, as in _plane_, _whale_ (whatever may have been its origin), is, at present, but an orthographical expedient. It denotes the lengthening of the syllable. The reduplication of the consonant after a vowel, as in _spotted_, _torrent_, is in most cases but an orthographical expedient. It merely denotes that the preceding vowel is short (dependent). The use of ph for f in _Philip_, is an orthographical expedient, founded upon etymological reasons. The use of th for the simple sound of the first consonant in _thin_ and _thine_, is an orthographical expedient. The combination must be dealt with as a single letter. _Caution._--The letters x and q are not orthographical expedients. They are orthographical _compendiums_, x = ks, and q = kw. * * * * * CHAPTER IX. HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE ENGLISH ALPHABET. § 160. The preceding chapter has exhibited the theory of a full and perfect alphabet; it has shown how far the English alphabet falls short of such a standard; and, above all, it has exhibited some of the conventional modes of spelling which the insufficiency of alphabets, combined with other causes, has engendered. The present chapter gives a _history_ of our alphabet, whereby many of its defects are _accounted for_. These defects, it may be said, once for all, the English alphabet shares with those of the rest of the world; although, with the doubtful exception of the French, it possesses them in a higher degree than any. With few, if any exceptions, _all the modes of writing in the world originate_, directly or indirectly, from the Phoenician. At a certain period the alphabet of Palestine, Phoenicia, and the neighboring languages of the Semitic tribes, consisted of _twenty-two_ separate and distinct letters. Now the chances are, that, let a language possess as few elementary articulate sounds as possible, an alphabet of only _twenty-two_ letters will be insufficient. Hence it may safely be asserted, that the original Semitic alphabet was _insufficient_ for even the _Semitic_ languages. § 161. In this state it was imported into Greece. Now, as it rarely happens that any two languages have precisely the same elementary articulate sounds, so it rarely happens that an alphabet can be transplanted from one tongue to another, and be found to suit. When such is the case, alterations are required. The extent to which these alterations are made at all, or (if made) made on a right principle varies with different languages. Some _adapt_ an introduced alphabet well: others badly. Of the _twenty-two_ Phoenician letters the Greeks took but _twenty-one_. The eighteenth letter, _tsadi_ [Hebrew: TS] was never imported into Europe. Compared with the Semitic, the _Old_ Greek alphabet ran thus:-- _Hebrew._ _Greek._ 1. [Hebrew: '] [Alpha]. 2. [Hebrew: B] [Beta]. 3. [Hebrew: G] [Gamma]. 4. [Hebrew: D] [Delta]. 5. [Hebrew: H] [Epsilon]. 6. [Hebrew: W] Digamma. 7. [Hebrew: Z] [Zeta]. 8. [Hebrew: CH] [Eta]. 9. [Hebrew: T`] [Theta]. 10. [Hebrew: Y] [Iota]. 11. [Hebrew: K] [Kappa]. 12. [Hebrew: L] [Lambda]. 13. [Hebrew: M] [Mu]. 14. [Hebrew: N] [Nu]. 15. [Hebrew: S] [Sigma]? 16. [Hebrew: `] [Omicron]. 17. [Hebrew: P] [Pi]. 18. [Hebrew: TS] -- A letter called 19. [Hebrew: Q] koppa, afterwards ejected. 20. [Hebrew: R] [Rho]. 21. [Hebrew: SH] M afterwards [Sigma]? 22. [Hebrew: T] [Tau]. The _names_ of the letters were as follows: _Hebrew._ _Greek._ 1. Aleph Alpha. 2. Beth Bæta. 3. Gimel Gamma. 4. Daleth Delta. 5. He E, _psilon._ 6. Vaw _Digamma._ 7. Zayn Zæta. 8. Heth Hæta. 9. Teth Thæta. 10. Yod Iôta. 11. Kaph Kappa. 12. Lamed Lambda. 13. Mem Mu. 14. Nun Nu. 15. Samech Sigma? 16. Ayn O. 17. Pe Pi. 18. Tsadi ---- 19. Kof Koppa, _Archaic_. 20. Resh Rho. 21. Sin San, _Doric_. 22. Tau Tau. The alphabet of Phoenicia and Palestine being adapted to the language of Greece, the first change took place in the manner of writing. The Phoenicians wrote from right to left; the Greeks from left to right. Besides this, the following principles were recognised;-- a. Letters for which there was no use were left behind. This was the case, as seen above, with the eighteenth letter, _tsadi_. b. Letters expressive of sounds for which there was no precise equivalent in Greek, were used with other powers. This was the case with letters 5, 8, 16, and probably with some others. c. Letters of which the original sound, in the course of time, became changed, were allowed, as it were, to drop out of the alphabet. This was the case with 6 and 19. d. For such simple single elementary articulate sounds as there was no sign or letter representant, new signs, or letters, were invented. This principle gave to the Greek alphabet the new signs [phi], [chi], [upsilon], [omega]. e. The new signs were not mere modifications of the older ones, but totally new letters. All this was correct in principle; and the consequence is, that the Greek alphabet, although not originally meant to express a European tongue at all, expresses the Greek language well. § 162. But it was not from the Greek that our own alphabet was immediately derived; although ultimately it is referable to the same source as the Greek, viz., the Phoenician. It was the _Roman_ alphabet which served as the basis to the English. And it is in the changes which the Phoenician alphabet underwent in being accommodated to the Latin language that we must investigate the chief peculiarities of the present alphabet and orthography of Great Britain and America. Now respecting the Roman alphabet, we must remember that it was _not_ taken _directly_ from the Phoenician; in this important point differing from the Greek. Nor yet was it taken, _in the first instance_, from the Greek. It had a _double_ origin. The operation of the principles indicated in § 161 was a work of the time; and hence the older and more unmodified Greek alphabet approached in character its Phoenician prototype much more than the later, or modified. As may be seen, by comparing the previous alphabets with the common alphabets of the Greek Grammar, the letters 6 and 19 occur in the earlier, whilst they are missing in the later, modes of writing. On the other hand, the _old_ alphabet has no such signs as [phi], [chi], [upsilon], [omega], [psi], and [xi]. Such being the case, it is easy to imagine what would be the respective conditions of two Italian languages which borrowed those alphabets, the one from the earlier, the other from the later Greek. The former would contain the equivalents to _vaw_ (6), and _kof_ (19); but be destitute of [phi], [chi], &c. whereas the latter would have [phi], [chi], &c., but be without either _vaw_ or _kof_. Much the same would be the case with any single Italian language which took as its basis the _earlier_, but adopted, during the course of time, modifications from the _later_ Greek. It would exhibit within itself characters common to the two stages. This, or something very like it, was the case with Roman. For the first two or three centuries the alphabet was Etruscan; Etruscan derived _directly_ from the Greek, and from the _old_ Greek. Afterwards, however, the later Greek alphabet had its influence, and the additional letters which it contained were more or less incorporated; and that without effecting the ejection of any earlier ones. § 163. With these preliminaries we may investigate the details of the Roman alphabet, when we shall find that many of them stand in remarkable contrast with those of Greece and Phoenicia. At the same time where they differ with them, they agree with the English. _Order._ _Roman._ _English._ _Greek._ _Hebrew._ 1. A A Alpha Aleph. 2. B B Bæta Beth. 3. C C Gamma Gimel. 4. D D Delta Daleth. 5. E E Epsilon He. 6. F F _Digamma_ Vaw. 7. G G -- -- 8. H H Hæta Heth. 9. I I Iôta Iod. 10. J J Iôta Iod. 11. K Kappa Kaf. 12. L L Lamda Lamed. 13. M M Mu Mem. 14. N N Nu Nun. 15. O O Omicron Ayn. 16. P P Pi Pe. 17. Q Q _Koppa_ Kof. 18. R R Rho Resh. 19. S S _San_ Sin. 20. T T Tau Tau. 21. U U Upsilon -- 22. V V Upsilon -- 23. W Upsilon -- 24. X X Xi Samech.[43] 25. Y Y Upsilon -- 26. Z Z Zæta Zain. § 164. The differences of this table are referable to one of the following four heads:--a. Ejection. b. Addition. c. Change of power. d. Change of order. a. _Ejection._--In the first instance, the Italians ejected as unnecessary, letters 7,[44] 9, and 11: _zayn_ (_zæta_), _teth_ (_thæta_), and _kaf_ (_kappa_). Either the sounds which they expressed were wanting in their language; or else they were expressed by some other letter. The former was probably the case with 7 and 9, _zæta_ and _thæta_, the latter with 11, _kappa_. b. _Addition._--Out of the Greek _iôta_, two; out of the Greek _upsilon_, four modifications have been evolved; viz., i and j out of [iota], and u, v, w, y, out of [upsilon]. c. _Change of power._--Letter 3, in Greek and Hebrew had the sound of the g in _gun_; in Latin that of k. The reason for this lies in the structure of the Etruscan language. In that tongue the _flat_ sounds were remarkably deficient; indeed, it is probable, that that of g was wanting. Its _sharp_ equivalent, however, the sound of k, was by no means wanting; and the Greek _gamma_ was used to denote it. This made the equivalent to k, the third letter of the alphabet, as early as the time of the Etruscans. But the _Romans_ had both sounds, the _flat_ as well as the _sharp_, g as well as k. How did they express them? Up to the second Punic War they made the rounded form of the Greek [Gamma], out of which the letter C has arisen, do double work, and signify k and g equally, just as in the present English th is sounded as the Greek [theta],[45] and as dh;[46] in proof whereof we have in the Duillian column, MACESTRATOS = MAGISTRATOS, and CARTHACINIENSES = CARTHAGINIENSES. Thus much concerning the power and places of the Latin c, as opposed to the Greek [gamma]. But this is not all. The use of _gamma_, with the power of k, made _kappa_ superfluous, and accounts for its ejection in the _Etruscan_ alphabet; a fact already noticed. Furthermore, an addition to the Etruscan alphabet was required by the existence of the sound of g, in Latin, as soon as the inconvenience of using c with a double power became manifest. What took place then? Even this. The third letter was modified in form, or became a new letter, c being altered into g; and the new letter took its place in the alphabet. Where was this? As the _seventh_ letter between f (_digamma_) and h (_hæta_). Why? Because it was there where there was a vacancy, and where it replaced the Greek _zæta_, or the Hebrew _zayn_, a letter which, _at that time_, was not wanted in Latin. d. _Change of order._--As far as the letters c and g are concerned, this has been explained; and it has been shown that change of order and change of power are sometimes very closely connected. All that now need be added is, that those letters which were _last_ introduced from the Greek into the Roman alphabet, were placed at the end. This is why u, v, w, and y come after t--the last letter of the original Phoenician, and also of the _older_ Greek. This, too, is the reason for z coming last of all. It was restored for the purpose of spelling Greek words. But as its original place had been filled up by g, it was tacked on as an appendage, rather than incorporated as an element. X in _power_, coincided with the Greek xi; in _place_, with the Greek _khi_. Its _position_ seems to have determined its _form_, which is certainly that of X rather than of [Xi]. The full investigation of this is too lengthy for the present work. § 165. It should be observed, that, in the Latin, the letters have no longer any _names_ (like _beth_, _bæta_), except such as are derived from their powers (_be_, _ce_). § 166. The principles which determined the form of the Roman alphabet were, upon the whole, correct; and, hence, the Roman alphabet, although not originally meant to express an Italian tongue at all, expressed the language to which it was applied tolerably. On the other hand, there were both omissions and alterations which have had a detrimental effect upon the orthography of those other numerous tongues to which Latin has supplied the alphabet. Thus-- a. It is a matter of regret, that the differences which the Greeks drew between the so-called _long_ and _short_ e and o, was neglected by the Latins; in other words, that [omega] was omitted entirely, and [eta] changed in power. Had this been the case, all the orthographical expedients by which we have to express the difference between the o in _not_, and the o in _note_, would have been prevented--_not_, _note_, _moat_--_bed_, _bead_, _heel_, _glede_, &c. b. It is a matter of regret, that such an unnecessary _compendium_ as q = cu, or cw, should have been retained from the old Greek alphabet; and, still more so, that the equally superfluous x = cs, or ks, should have been re-admitted. c. It is a matter of regret, that the Greek [theta] was not treated like the Greek [zeta]. Neither were wanted at first; both afterwards. The manner, however, of their subsequent introduction was different. _Zæta_ came in as a simple single letter, significant of a simple single sound. _Thæta_, on the contrary, although expressive of an equally simple sound, became th. This was a combination rather than a letter; and the error which it engendered was great. It suggested the idea, that a simple sound was a compound one--which was wrong. It further suggested the idea, that the sound of [theta] differed from that of [tau], by the addition of h--which was wrong also. § 167. The Greek language had a system of sounds different from the Phoenician; and the alphabet required modifying accordingly. The Roman language had a system of sounds different from the Greek and the alphabet required modifying accordingly. This leads us to certain questions concerning the Anglo-Saxon. Had _it_ a system of sounds different from the Roman? If so, what modifications did the alphabet require? Were such modifications effected? If so, how? Sufficiently or insufficiently? The answers are unsatisfactory. § 168. The Anglo-Saxon had, even in its earliest stage, the following sounds, for which the Latin alphabet had no equivalent signs or letters-- 1. The sound of the th in _thin_. 2. The sound of the th in _thine_. It had certainly these: probably others. § 169. Expressive of these, two new signs were introduced, viz., þ = th in _thin_, and ð = th in _thine_. W, also evolved out of u, was either an original improvement of the Anglo-Saxon orthographists, or a mode of expression borrowed from one of the allied languages of the Continent. Probably the latter was the case; since we find the following passage in the Latin dedication of Otfrid's "Krist:"--"Hujus enim linguæ barbaries, ut est inculca et indisciplinabilis, atque insueta capi regulari freno grammaticæ artis, sic etiam in multis dictis scriptu est difficilis propter literarum aut congeriem, aut incognitam sonoritatem. Nam interdum tria u u u ut puto quærit in sono; priores duo consonantes, ut mihi videtur, tertium vocali sono manente." This was, as far as it went, correct, so that the Anglo-Saxon alphabet, although not originally meant to express a Gothic tongue at all, answered the purpose to which it was applied tolerably. § 170. Change, however, went on; and the orthography which suited the earlier Anglo-Saxon would not suit the later; at any rate, it would not suit the language which had become or was becoming, _English_; wherein the sounds for which the Latin alphabet had no equivalent signs increase. Thus there is at present-- 1. The sound of the sh in _shine_. 2. The sound of the z in _azure_. How are these to be expressed? The rule has hitherto been to denote simple single sounds, by simple single signs, and where such signs have no existence already, to _originate new ones_. To _combine existing letters_, rather than to coin a new one, has only been done rarely. The Latin substitution of the combination th for the simple single [theta], was exceptionable. It was a precedent, however, which now begins to be followed generally. § 171. It is this precedent which accounts for the absence of any letter in English, expressive of either of the sounds in question. § 172. Furthermore, our alphabet has not only not increased in proportion to our sound-system, but it has _decreased_. The Anglo-Saxon þ = the th in _thin_, and ð = the th in _thine_, have become obsolete; and a difference in pronunciation, which our ancestors expressed, _we_ overlook. The same precedent is at the bottom of this; a fact which leads us to-- § 173. _The Anglo-Norman alphabet._--The Anglo-Saxon language was _Gothic_; the alphabet, _Roman_. The Anglo-Norman language was _Roman_; the alphabet, _Roman_ also. The Anglo-Saxon took his speech from one source; his writing from another. The Anglo-Norman took both from the same. In adapting a Latin alphabet to a Gothic language, the Anglo-Saxon allowed himself more latitude than the Anglo-Norman. We have seen that the new signs þ and ð were Anglo-Saxon. Now the sounds which these letters represent did not occur in the Norman-French, consequently the Norman-French alphabet neither had nor needed to have signs to express them; until after the battle of Hastings, _when it became the Anglo-Norman of England_. _Then_, the case became altered. The English language influenced the Norman orthography, and the Norman orthography the English language; and the result was, that the simple single correct and distinctive signs of the Anglo-Saxon alphabet, became replaced by the incorrect and indistinct combination th. This was a loss, both in the way of theoretical correctness and perspicuity. Such is the general view of the additions, ejections, changes of power, and changes of order in the English alphabet. The extent, however, to which an alphabet is faulty, is no measure of the extent to which an orthography is faulty; since an insufficient alphabet may, by consistency in its application, be more useful than a full and perfect alphabet unsteadily applied. § 174. One of our orthographical expedients, viz., the reduplication of the consonant following, to express the shortness (dependence) of the preceding vowel, is as old as the classical languages: _terra_, [Greek: thalassa]. Nevertheless, the following extract from the "Ormulum" (written in the thirteenth century) is the fullest recognition of the practice that I have met with. And whase wilenn shall þis boc, Efft oþerr siþe writenn, Himm bidde icc þatt hett write rihht, Swa sum þiss boc himm tæcheþþ; All þwerrt utt affterr þatt itt iss Oppo þiss firrste bisne, Wiþþ all swilc rime als her iss sett, Wiþþ alse fele wordess: And tatt he loke well þatt he _An boc-staff write twiggess_,[47] Eggwhær þær itt uppo þiss boc Iss writenn o þatt wise: Loke he well þatt hett write swa, Forr he ne magg noht elless, On Englissh writenn rihht te word, þatt wite he well to soþe. § 175. _The order of the alphabet._--In the history of our alphabet, we have had the history of certain changes in the arrangement, as well as of the changes in the number and power of its letters. The following question now presents itself: viz., Is there in the order of the letters any _natural_ arrangement, or is the original as well as the present succession of letters arbitrary and accidental? The following facts suggest an answer in the affirmative. The order of the Hebrew alphabet is as follows:-- _Name._ _Sound._ 1. _Aleph_ Either a vowel or a breathing. 2. _Beth_ B. 3. _Gimel_ G, as in _gun_. 4. _Daleth_ D. 5. _He_ Either a vowel or an aspirate. 6. _Vaw_ V. 7. _Zayn_ Z. 8. _Kheth_ a variety of K. 9. _Teth_ a variety of T. 10. _Yod_ I. 11. _Caph_ K. 12. _Lamed_ L. 13. _Mem_ M. 14. _Nun_ N. 15. _Samech_ a variety of S. 16. _Ayn_ Either a vowel or ----? 17. _Pe_ P. 18. _Tsadi_ TS. 19. _Kof_ a variety of K. 20. _Resh_ R. 21. _Sin_ S. 22. _Tau_ T. Let _beth_, _vaw_, and _pe_ (b, v, p) constitute a series called series P. Let _gimel_, _kheth_, and _kof_ (g, kh, k') constitute a series called series K. Let _daleth_, _teth_, and _tau_, (d, t', t) constitute a series called series T. Let _aleph_, _he_, and _ayn_ constitute a series called the vowel series. Let the first four letters be taken in their order. 1. _Aleph_ of the vowel series. 2. _Beth_ of series P. 3. _Gimel_ of series K. 4. _Daleth_ of series T. Herein the consonant of series B comes next to the letter of the vowel series; that of series K follows; and in the last place, comes the letter of series T. After this the order changes; _daleth_ being followed by _he_ of the vowel series. 5. _He_ of the vowel series. 6. _Vaw_ of series P. 7. _Zayn_ ---- 8. _Kheth_ of series K. 9. _Teth_ of series T. In this second sequence the _relative_ positions of v, kh, and t', are the same in respect to each other, and the same in respect to the vowel series. The sequence itself is broken by the letter _zayn_ but it is remarkable that the principle of the sequence is the same. Series P follows the vowel and series T is farthest from it. After this the system becomes but fragmentary. Still, even now, _pe_, of series P, follows _ayn_; _tau_, of series T, is farthest from it, and _kof_, of series K, is intermediate. If this be the case, and, if the letters, so to say, _circulate_, the alterations made in their order during the transfer of their alphabet from Greece to Rome, have had the unsatisfactory effect of concealing an interesting arrangement, and of converting a real, though somewhat complex regularity, into apparent hazard and disorder. * * * * * QUESTIONS. 1. Explain the terms _sharp_, _explosive_, _true aspirate_, _apparent aspirate_, _broad_, _dependent_. 2. Exhibit the difference between the quantity of _syllables_ and the quantity of _vowels_. 3. Accentuate the following words,--_attribute_ (_adjective_), _survey_ (_verb_), _August_ (_the month_). 4. Under what conditions is the _sound_ of consonants doubled? 5. Exhibit, in a tabular form, the relations of the a) mutes, b) the vowels, underlining those which do not occur in English. 6. What is the power of ph in _Philip_? what in _haphazard_? Illustrate the difference fully. 7. Investigate the changes by which the words _picture_, _nature_, derived from the Latin _pictura_ and _natura_, are _sounded pictshur_ and _natshur_. 8. How do you sound the combination apd? Why? 9. In what points is the English alphabet _insufficient_, _redundant_, and _inconsistent_? 10. Why is z (_zæta_), which is the sixth letter in the Greek, the last in the English alphabet? * * * * * PART IV. ETYMOLOGY. * * * * * CHAPTER I. ON THE PROVINCE OF ETYMOLOGY. § 176. The word etymology, derived from the Greek, in the current language of scholars and grammarians, has a double meaning. At times it is used in a wide, and at times in a restricted sense. If in the English language we take such a word as _fathers_, we are enabled to divide it into two parts; in other words, to reduce it into two elements. By comparing it with the word _father_, we see that the s is neither part nor parcel of the original word. Hence the word is capable of being analysed; _father_ being the original primitive word, and s the secondary superadded termination. From the word _father_, the word _fathers_ is _derived_, or (changing the expression) deduced, or descended. What has been said of the word _fathers_ may also be said of _fatherly_, _fatherlike_, _fatherless_, &c. Now, from the word _father_, all these words (_fathers_, _fatherly_, _fatherlike_, and _fatherless_) differ in form and in meaning. To become such a word as _fathers_, &c., the word _father_ is _changed_. Of changes of this sort, it is the province of etymology to take cognizance. § 177. Compared with the form _fathers_, the word _father_ is the older form of the two. The word _father_ is a word current in this the nineteenth century. The same word is found much earlier, under different forms, and in different languages. Thus, in the Latin language, the form was _pater_; in Greek, [Greek: patêr]. Now, with _father_ and _fathers_, the change takes place within the same language, whilst the change that takes place between _pater_ and _father_ takes place within different languages. Of changes of this latter kind it is, also, the province of etymology to take cognizance. § 178. In its widest signification, etymology takes cognizance _of the changes of the form of words_. However, as the etymology that compares the forms _fathers_ and _father_ is different from the etymology that compares _father_ and _pater_, we have, of etymology, two sorts: one dealing with the changes of form that words undergo in one and the same language (_father_, _fathers_), the other dealing with the changes that words undergo in passing from one language to another (_pater_, _father_). The first of these sorts may be called etymology in the limited sense of the word, or the etymology of the grammarian. In this case it is opposed to orthoepy, orthography, syntax, and the other parts of grammar. This is the etymology of the ensuing pages. The second may be called etymology in the wide sense of the word, _historical_ etymology, or _comparative_ etymology. § 179. It must be again repeated that the two sorts of etymology agree in one point, viz., in taking cognizance of the _changes of forms that words undergo_. Whether the change arise from grammatical reasons, as _father_, _fathers_, or from a change of language taking place in the lapse of time, as _pater_, _father_, is a matter of indifference. In the Latin _pater_, and in the English _father_, we have one of two things, either two words descended or derived from each other, or two words descended or derived from a common original source. In _fathers_ we have a formation deduced from the radical word _father_. With these preliminaries we may understand Dr. Johnson's explanation of the word etymology. "ETYMOLOGY, n. s. (_etymologia_, Lat.) [Greek: etumos] (_etymos_) _true, and_ [Greek: logos] (_logos_) _a word_. "1. _The descent or derivation of a word from its original; the deduction of formations from the radical word; the analysis of compounds into primitives._ "2. _The part of grammar which delivers the inflections of nouns and verbs."_ * * * * * CHAPTER II ON GENDER. § 180. How far is there such a thing as _gender_ in the English language? This depends upon the meaning that we attach to the word. In the Latin language we have the words _taurus_ = _bull_, and _vacca_ = _cow_. Here the natural distinction of _sex_ is expressed by _wholly_ different words. With this we have corresponding modes of expression in English: e.g., _Male._ _Female._ | _Male._ _Female._ | Bachelor Spinster. | Horse Mare. Boar Sow. | Ram Ewe. Boy Girl. | Son Daughter. Brother Sister. | Uncle Aunt. Buck Doe. | Father Mother, &c. The mode, however, of expressing different sexes by _wholly_ different words is not a matter of _gender_. The words _boy_ and _girl_ bear no _etymological_ relation to each other; neither being derived from the other, nor in any way connected with it. § 181. Neither are words like _cock-sparrow_, _man-servant_, _he-goat_, &c., as compared with _hen-sparrow_, _maid-servant_, _she-goat_, &c., specimens of _gender_. Here a difference of sex is indicated by the addition of a fresh term, from which is formed a compound word. § 182. In the Latin words _genitrix_ = _a mother_, and _genitor_ = _a father_, we have a nearer approach to _gender_. Here the difference of sex is expressed by a difference of termination; the words _genitor_ and _genitrix_ being in a true etymological relation, i.e., either derived from each other, or from some common source. With this we have, in English corresponding modes of expression: e.g. _Male._ _Female._ | _Male._ _Female._ | Actor Actress. | Lion Lioness. Arbiter Arbitress. | Peer Peeress. Baron Baroness. | Poet Poetess. Benefactor Benefactress. | Sorcerer Sorceress. Count Countess. | Songster Songstress. Duke Duchess. | Tiger Tigress. § 183. This, however, in strict grammatical language, is an approach to gender rather than _gender_ itself; the difference from true grammatical gender being as follows:-- Let the Latin words _genitor_ and _genitrix_ be declined:-- _Sing. Nom._ Genitor Genitrix. _Gen._ Genitor-is Genitric-is. _Dat._ Genitor-i Genitric-i. _Acc._ Genitor-em Genitric-em. _Voc._ Genitor Genitrix. _Plur. Nom._ Genitor-es Genitric-es. _Gen._ Genitor-um Genitric-um. _Dat._ Genitor-ibus Genitric-ibus. _Acc._ Genitor-es Genitric-es. _Voc._ Genitor-es Genitric-es. The syllables in italics are the signs of the cases and numbers. Now those signs are the same in each word, the difference of meaning (or sex) not affecting them. § 184. Contrast, however, with the words _genitor_ and _genitrix_ the words _domina_ = _a mistress_, and _dominus_ = _a master_. _Sing. Nom._ Domin-a Domin-us. _Gen._ Domin-æ Domin-i. _Dat._ Domin-æ Domin-o. _Acc._ Domin-am Domin-um. _Voc._ Domin-a Domin-e. _Plur. Nom._ Domin-æ Domin-i. _Gen._ Domin-arum Domin-orum. _Dat._ Domin-abus Domin-is. _Acc._ Domin-as Domin-os. _Voc._ Domin-æ Domin-i. Here the letters in italics, or the signs of the cases and numbers, are different; the difference being brought about by the difference of gender. Now it is very evident that, if _genitrix_ be a specimen of gender, _domina_ is something more. § 185. It may be laid down as a sort of definition, that _there is no gender where there is no affection of the declension_: consequently, that, although we have, in English, words corresponding to _genitrix_ and _genitor_, we have no true genders until we find words corresponding to _dominus_ and _domina_. § 186. The second element in the notion of gender, although I will not venture to call it an essential one, is the following:--In the words _domina_ and _dominus_, _mistress_ and _master_, there is a _natural_ distinction of sex; the one being masculine, or male, the other feminine, or female. In the words _sword_ and _lance_ there is _no natural_ distinction of sex. Notwithstanding this, the word _hasta_, in Latin, is as much of the feminine gender as _domina_, whilst _gladius_ = _a sword_ is, like _dominus_, a masculine noun. From this we see that, in languages wherein there are true genders, a fictitious or conventional sex is attributed even to inanimate objects; in other words, _sex_ is a natural distinction, _gender_ a grammatical one. § 187. In § 185 it is written, that "although we have, in English, words corresponding to _genitrix_ and _genitor_, we have no true genders until we find _words corresponding to dominus_ and _domina_."--The sentence was intentionally worded with caution. Words like _dominus_ and _domina_, that is, words where the declension is affected by the sex, _are_ to be found _even in English_. The pronoun _him_, from the Anglo-Saxon and English _he_, as compared with the pronoun _her_, from the Anglo-Saxon _heó_, is affected in its declension by the difference of sex, and is a true, though fragmentary, specimen of gender. The same is the case with the form _his_ as compared with _her_. The pronoun _it_ (originally _hit_), as compared with _he_, is a specimen of gender. The relative _what_, as compared with the masculine _who_, is a specimen of gender. The forms _it_ (for _hit_) and _he_ are as much genders as _hoc_ and _hic_, and the forms _hoc_ and _hic_ are as much genders as _bonum_ and _bonus_. § 188. The formation of the neuter gender by the addition of -t, in words like _wha-t_, _i-t_, and _tha-t_, occurs in other languages. The -t in _tha-t_ is the -d in _istu-d_, Latin, and the -t in _ta-t_, Sanskrit. § 189. In the Moeso-Gothic and Scandinavian, the _adjectives_ form the neuters in -t, in Old High German in -z (ts), and in Modem German in -s (derived from -z)--Moeso-Gothic, _blind-ata_; Icel., _blind-t_; Old High German, _plint-ez_, M. G. _blind-es_ = _cæc-um_. _Caution._--_Which_, is _not_ the neuter of _who_. § 190. Just as there are in English fragments of a gender modifying the declension, so are there, also, fragments of the second element of gender; viz., the attribution of sex to objects naturally destitute of it. _The sun in _his_ glory_, _the moon in _her_ wane_, are examples of this. A sailor calls his ship _she_. A husbandman, according to Mr. Cobbett, does the same with his _plough_ and working implements:--"In speaking of a _ship_ we say _she_ and _her_. And you know that our country-folks in Hampshire call almost every thing _he_ or _she_. It is curious to observe that country labourers give the feminine appellation to those things only which are more closely identified with themselves, and by the qualities or conditions of which their own efforts, and their character as workmen, are affected. The mower calls his _scythe_ a _she_, the ploughman calls his _plough_ a _she_; but a prong, or a shovel, or a harrow, which passes promiscuously from hand to hand, and which is appropriated to no particular labourer, is called a _he_."--"English Grammar," Letter v. § 191. Now, although Mr. Cobbett's statements may account for a sailor calling his ship _she_, they will not account for the custom of giving to the sun a masculine, and to the moon a feminine, pronoun, as is done in the expressions quoted in the last section; still less will it account for the circumstance of the Germans reversing the gender, and making the _sun_ feminine, and the _moon_ masculine. § 192. Let there be a period in the history of a language wherein the _sun_ and _moon_ are dealt with, not as inanimate masses of matter, but as animated divinities. Let there, in other words, be a time when dead things are personified, and when there is a _mythology_. Let an object like the _sun_ be deemed a _male_, and an object like the _moon_, a _female_, deity. We may then understand the origin of certain genders. The Germans say the _sun in _her_ glory_; the _moon in _his_ wane_. This difference between the usage of the two languages, like so many others, is explained by the influence of the classical languages upon the English.--"_Mundilfori had two children; a son, Mâni (Moon), and a daughter, Sôl (Sun)._"--Such is an extract out of an Icelandic mythological work, viz., the prose Edda. In the classical languages, however, _Phoebus_ and _Sol_ are masculine, and _Luna_ and _Diana_ feminine. Hence it is that, although in Anglo-Saxon and Old-Saxon the _sun_ is _feminine_, it is in English _masculine_. _Philosophy_, _charity_, &c., or the names of abstract qualities personified, take a conventional sex, and are feminine from their being feminine in Latin. As in all these words there is no change of form, the consideration of them is a point of rhetoric, rather than of etymology. § 193. The remainder of this chapter is devoted to miscellaneous remarks upon the true and apparent genders of the English language. 1. With the false genders like _baron_, _baroness_, it is a general rule that the feminine form is derived from the masculine, and not the masculine from the feminine; as _peer_, _peeress_. The words _widower_, _gander_, and _drake_ are exceptions. For the word _wizard_, from _witch_, see the section on augmentative forms. 2. The termination -ess, in which so large a portion of our feminine substantives terminate, is not of Saxon but of classical origin, being derived from the termination -ix, _genitrix_. 3. The words _shepherdess_, _huntress_, and _hostess_ are faulty; the radical part of the word being Germanic, and the secondary part classical: indeed, in strict English Grammar, the termination -ess has no place at all. It is a classic, not a Gothic, element. 4. The termination -inn, is current in German, as the equivalent to -ess, and as a feminine affix (_freund_ = _a friend_; _freundinn_ = _a female friend_). In English it occurs only in a fragmentary form;--e.g., in _vixen_, a true feminine derivative from _fox_ = _füchsinn_, German. _Bruin_ = _the bear_, may be either a female form, as in Old High German _përo_ = _a he-bear_, _pirinn_ = _a she-bear_; or it may be the Norse form _björn_ = _a bear_, male or female. _Caution._--Words like _margravine_ and _landgravine_ prove nothing, being scarcely naturalised. 5. The termination -str, as in _webster_, _songster_, and _baxter_, was originally a feminine affix. Thus, in Anglo-Saxon, Sangere, _a male singer_ } { Sangëstre, _a female singer_. Bäcere, _a male baker_ } were { Bacestre, _a female baker_. Fiðelere, _a male fiddler_ } opposed { Fiðelstre, _a female fiddler_. Vebbere, _a male weaver_ } to { Vëbbëstre, _a female weaver_. Rædere, _a male reader_ } { Rædestre, _a female reader_. Seamere, _a male seamer_ } { Seamestre, _a female seamer_. The same is the case in the present Dutch of Holland: e.g., _spookster_ = _a female fortune-teller_; _baxster_ = _a baking-woman_; _waschster_ = _a washerwoman_. The word _spinster_ still retains its original feminine force. 6. The words _songstress_ and _seamstress_, besides being, as far as concerns the intermixture of languages, in the predicament of _shepherdess_, have, moreover, a double feminine termination; 1st. -str, of Germanic, 2nd. -ess, of classical, origin. 7. In the word _heroine_ we have a Greek termination, just as -ix is a Latin, and -inn a German one. It must not, however, be considered as derived from _hero_, by any process of the English language, but be dealt with as a separate importation from the Greek language. 8. The form _deaconness_ is not wholly unexceptionable; since the termination -ess is of Latin, the root _deacon_ of Greek origin: this Greek origin being rendered all the more conspicuous by the spelling, _deacon_ (from _diaconos_), as compared with the Latin _decanus_. 9. _Goose, gander_.--One peculiarity in this pair of words has already been indicated. In the older forms of the word _goose_, such as [Greek: chên], Greek; _anser_, Latin; _gans_, German, as well as in the derived form _gander_, we have the proofs that, originally, there belonged to the word the sound of the letter n. In the forms [Greek: odous], [Greek: odontos], Greek; _dens_, _dentis_, Latin; _zahn_, German; _tooth_, English, we find the analogy that accounts for the ejection of the n, and the lengthening of the vowel preceding. With respect, however, to the d in _gander_, it is not easy to say whether it is inserted in one word or omitted in the other. Neither can we give the precise power of the -er. The following forms occur in the different Gothic dialects. _Gans_, fem.; _ganazzo_, masc., Old High German--_gôs_, f.; _gandra_, m., Anglo-Saxon--_gâs_, Icelandic, f.; _gaas_, Danish, f.; _gassi_, Icelandic, m.; _gasse_, Danish, m.--_ganser_, _ganserer_, _gansart_, _gänserich_, _gander_, masculine forms in different New German dialects. 10. Observe, the form _gänserich_, has a masculine termination. The word _täuberich_, in provincial New German, has the same form and the same power. It denotes a _male dove_; _taube_, in German, signifying a _dove_. In _gänserich_ and _täuberich_, we find preserved the termination -rich (or _rik_), with a masculine power. Of this termination we have a remnant, in English, preserved in the curious word _drake_. To _duck_ the word _drake_ has no etymological relation whatsoever. It is derived from a word with which it has but one letter in common; viz., the Latin _anas_ = _a duck_. Of this the root is anat-, as seen in the genitive case _anatis_. In Old High German we find the form _anetrekho_ = _a drake_; in provincial New High German there is _enterich_ and _äntrecht_, from whence come the English and Low German form, _drake_. 11. _Peacock_, _peahen_.--In these compounds, it is not the word _pea_ that is rendered masculine or feminine by the addition of _cock_ and _hen_, but it is the words _cock_ and _hen_ that are modified by prefixing _pea_. * * * * * CHAPTER III. THE NUMBERS. § 194. In the Greek language the word _patær_ signifies a _father_, denoting _one_, whilst _patere_ signifies _two fathers_, denoting a pair, and thirdly, _pateres_ signifies _fathers_, speaking of any number beyond two. The three words, _patær_, _patere_, and _pateres_, are said to be in different numbers, the difference of meaning being expressed by a difference of form. These numbers have names. The number that speaks of _one_ is the _singular_, the number that speaks of _two_ is the _dual_ (from the Latin word _duo_ = _two_), and the number that speaks of _more than two_ is the _plural_. All languages have numbers, but all languages have not them to the same extent. The Hebrew has a dual, but it is restricted to nouns only. It has, moreover, this peculiarity; it applies, for the most part, only to things which are naturally double, as _the two eyes_, _the two hands_, &c. The Latin has no dual number, except the _natural_ one in the words _ambo_ and _duo_. § 195. The question presents itself,--to what extent have we numbers in English? Like the Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, we have a singular and a plural. Like the Latin, and unlike the Greek and Hebrew, we have no dual. § 196. Different from the question, _to what degree have we numbers?_ is the question,--_over what extent of our language have we numbers?_ This distinction has already been foreshadowed or indicated. The Greeks, who said _typtô_ = _I beat_, _typteton_ = _ye two beat_, _typtomen_ = _we beat_, had a dual number for their verbs as well as their nouns; while the Hebrew dual was limited to the nouns only. In the Greek, then, the dual 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. § 197. The numbers, then, in the present English are two, the singular and the plural. Over what extent of language have we a plural? The Latins say _bonus pater_ = _a good father_; _boni patres_ = _good fathers_. In the Latin, the adjective _bonus_ changes its form with the change of number of the substantive that it accompanies. In English it is only the substantive that is changed. Hence we see that in the Latin language the numbers were extended to adjectives, whereas in English they are confined to the substantives and pronouns. Compared with the Anglo-Saxon, the present English is in the same relation as it is with the Latin. In the Anglo-Saxon there were plural forms for the adjectives. § 198. Respecting the formation of the plural, the current rule is, that it is formed from the singular by adding s, as _father_, _fathers_. This, however, is by no means a true expression. The letter s added to the word _father_, making it _fathers_, is s to the _eye_ only. To the _ear_ it is z. The word sounds _fatherz_. If the s retained its sound the spelling would be _fatherce_. In _stags_, _lads_, &c., the sound is _stagz_, _ladz_. The rule, then, for the formation of the English plurals, rigorously, though somewhat lengthily expressed, is as follows.--_The plural is formed from the singular, by adding to words ending in a vowel, a liquid or flat mute, the flat lene sibilant (z); and to words ending in a sharp mute, the sharp lene sibilant (s):_ e.g. (the sound of the word being expressed), _pea_, _peaz_; _tree_, _treez_; _day_, _dayz_; _hill_, _hillz_; _hen_, _henz_; _gig_, _gigz_; _trap_, _traps_; _pit_, _pits_; _stack_, _stacks_. § 199. Upon the formation of the English plural some further remarks are necessary. a. In the case of words ending in b, v, d, the th in _thine_ = ð, or g, a change either of the final flat consonant, or of the sharp s affixed, was _not a matter of choice but of necessity_; the combinations abs, avs, ads, aðs, ags, being unpronounceable. b. Whether the first of the two mutes should be accommodated to the second (aps, afs, ats, aþs, aks), or the second to the first (abz, avz, adz, aðz, agz), is determined by _the habit of the particular language_ in question; and, with a few _apparent_ exceptions it is the rule of the English language to accommodate the second sound to the first, and not _vice versâ_. c. Such combinations as _peas_, _trees_, _hills_, _hens_, &c., (the s preserving its original power, and being sounded as if written _peace_, _treece_, _hillce_, _hence_), being pronounceable, the change from s to z, in words so ending, is _not_ a matter determined by the necessity of the case, but by the habit of the English language. d. Although the vast majority of our plurals ends, not in s, but in z, the original addition was not z, but s. This we infer from three facts: 1. From the spelling; 2. from the fact of the sound of z being either rare or non-existent in Anglo-Saxon; 3. from the sufficiency of the causes to bring about the change. It may now be seen that some slight variations in the form of our plurals are either mere points of orthography, or else capable of being explained on very simple euphonic principles. § 200. _Boxes, churches, judges, lashes, kisses, blazes, princes_.--Here there is the addition, not of the mere letter s, but of the syllable -es. As s cannot be immediately added to s, the intervention of a vowel becomes necessary; and that all the words whose plural is formed in -es really end either in the sounds of s, or in the allied sounds of z, sh, or zh, may be seen by analysis; since x = ks, ch = tsh, and j or ge = dzh, whilst ce, in _prince_, is a mere point of orthography for s. _Monarchs_, _heresiarchs_.--Here the ch equals not tsh, but k, so that there is no need of being told that they do not follow the analogy of _church_, &c. _Cargoes_, _echoes_.--From _cargo_ and _echo_, with the addition of e; an orthographical expedient for the sake of denoting the length of the vowel o. _Beauty, beauties_; _key, keys_.--Like the word _cargoes_, &c., these forms are points, not of etymology, but of orthography. _Pence_.--The peculiarity of this word consists in having a _flat_ liquid followed by the sharp sibilant s (spelt ce), contrary to the rule given above. In the first place, it is a contracted form from _pennies_; in the second place, its sense is collective rather than plural; in the third place, the use of the sharp sibilant lene distinguishes it from _pens_, sounded _penz_. That its sense is _collective_ rather than _plural_, we learn from the word _sixpence_, which, compared with _sixpences_, is no plural, but a singular form. _Dice_.--In respect to its form, peculiar for the reason that _pence_ is peculiar.--We find the sound of s after a vowel, where that of z is expected. This distinguishes _dice_ for play, from _dies_ (_diz_) for coining. _Dice_, perhaps, like _pence_, is collective rather than plural. In _geese_, _lice_, and _mice_, we have, apparently, the same phenomenon as in _dice_, viz., a sharp sibilant (s) where a _flat_ one (z) is expected. The s, however, in these words is not the sign of the plural, but the last letter of the original word. _Alms_.--This is no true plural form. The s belongs to the original word, Anglo-Saxon, _ælmesse_; Greek, [Greek: eleêmosunê]; just as the s in _goose_ does. How far the word, although a true singular in its form, may have a collective signification, and require its verb to be plural, is a point not of etymology, but of syntax. The same is the case with the word _riches_, from the French _richesse_. In _riches_ the last syllable being sounded as ez, increases its liability to pass for a plural. _News_, _means_, _pains_.--These, the reverse of _alms_ and _riches_, are true plural forms. How far, in sense, they are singular is a point not of etymology, but of syntax. _Mathematics_, _metaphysics_, _politics_, _ethics_, _optics_, _physics_.--The following is an exhibition of my hypothesis respecting these words, to which I invite the reader's criticism. All the words in point are of Greek origin, and all are derived from a Greek adjective. Each is the name of some department of study, of some art, or of some science. As the words are Greek, so also are the sciences which they denote, either of Greek origin, or else such as flourished in Greece. Let the arts and sciences of Greece be expressed in Greek, rather by a substantive and an adjective combined, than by a simple substantive; for instance, let it be the habit of the language to say _the musical art_, rather than _music_. Let the Greek for _art_ be a word in the feminine gender; e.g., [Greek: technê] (_tekhnæ_), so that the _musical art_ be [Greek: hê mousikê technê] (_hæ mousikæ tekhnæ_). 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: mousikê]. 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: phusikê] (_fysikæ_), physic, from [Greek: hê phusikê technê], 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: phusikê] (_fysicæ_), and the treatises upon it, by the neuter adjective plural, as [Greek: phusika] (_fysika_). The treatises of Aristotle are generally so named. To apply this, I conceive, that in the middle ages a science of Greek origin might have its name drawn from two sources, viz., from the name of the art or science, or from the name of the books wherein it was treated. In the first case it had a singular form, as _physic_, _logic_; in the second place a plural form, as _mathematics_, _metaphysics_, _optics_. In what number these words, having a collective sense, require their verbs to be, is a point of syntax. § 201. The plural form _children_ (_child-er-en_) requires particular notice. In the first place it is a double plural; the -en being the -en in _oxen_, whilst the simpler form _child-er_ occurs in the old English, and in certain provincial dialects. Now, what is the -er in _child-er_? In Icelandic, no plural termination is commoner than that in -r; as _geisl-ar_ = _flashes_, _tung-ur_ = _tongues_, &c. Nevertheless, it is not the Icelandic that explains the plural form in question. Besides the word _childer_, we collect from the Old High German the following forms in -r:-- Hus-ir, _Houses_, Chalp-ir, _Calves_, Lemp-ir, _Lambs_, Plet-ir, _Blades of grass_, Eig-ir, _Eggs_, and others, the peculiarity of which is the fact of their all being _of the neuter gender_. Now, the theory respecting this form which is propounded by Grimm is as follows:-- 1. The -r represents an earlier -s. 2. Which was, originally, no sign of a plural number, but merely a neuter derivative affix, common to the singular as well as to the plural number. 3. In this form it appears in the Moeso-Gothic: _ag-is_ = _fear_ (whence _ague_ = _shivering_), _hat-is_ = _hate_, _riqv-is_ = _smoke_ (_reek_). In none of these words is the -s radical, and in none is it limited to the singular number. To these doctrines, it should be added, that the reason why a singular derivational affix should become the sign of the plural number, lies, most probably, in the _collective_ nature of the words in which it occurs: _Husir_ = _a collection of houses_, _eiger_ = _a collection of eggs_, _eggery_ or _eyry_. In words like _yeoman-r-y_ and _Jew-r-y_, the -r has, probably, the same origin, and is _collective_. In Wicliffe we find the form _lamb-r-en_, which is to _lamb_ as _children_ is to _child_. § 202. _The form in -en._--In the Anglo-Saxon no termination of the plural number is more common than -n: _tungan_, tongues; _steorran_, stars. Of this termination we have evident remains in the words _oxen_, _hosen_, _shoon_, _eyne_, words more or less antiquated. This, perhaps, is _no_ true plural. In _welk-in_ = _the clouds_, the original singular form is lost. § 203. _Men_, _feet_, _teeth_, _mice_, _lice_, _geese_.--In these we have some of the oldest words in the language. If these were, to a certainty, true plurals, we should have an appearance somewhat corresponding to the so-called _weak_ and _strong_ tenses of verbs; viz., one series of plurals formed by a change of the vowel, and another by the addition of the sibilant. The word _kye_, used in Scotland for _cows_, is of the same class. The list in Anglo-Saxon of words of this kind is different from that of the present English. _Sing._ _Plur._ Freónd Frýnd _Friends_. Feónd Fynd _Foes_. Niht Niht _Nights_. Bóc Béc _Books_. Burh Byrig _Burghs_. Bróc Bréc _Breeches_. Turf Týrf _Turves_. § 204. _Brethren_.--Here there are two changes. 1. The alteration of the vowel. 2. The addition of -en. Mr. Guest quotes the forms _brethre_ and _brothre_ from the Old English. The sense is collective rather than plural. _Peasen_ = _pulse_.--As _children_ is a double form of one sort (r + en), so is _peasen_ a double form of another (s + en); _pea_, _pea-s_, _pea-s-en_. Wallis speaks to the _singular_ power of the form in -s;--"Dicunt nonnulli _a pease_, pluraliter _peasen_; at melius, singulariter _a pea_, pluraliter _pease_."--P. 77. He might have added, that, theoretically, _pease_ was the proper singular form; as shown by the Latin _pis-um_. _Pullen_ = poultry. _Lussurioso._--What? three-and-twenty years in law! _Vendice._--I have known those who have been five-and-fifty, and all about _pullen_ and pigs.--"Revenger's Tragedy," iv. 1. If this were a plural form, it would be a very anomalous one. The -en, however, is no more a sign of the plural than is the -es in _rich-es_ (_richesse_.) The proper form is in -ain or -eyn. A false theefe, That came like a false fox, my _pullain_ to kill and mischeefe. "Gammer Gurton's Needle," v. 2. _Chickens_.--A third variety of the double inflection (en + s), with the additional peculiarity of the form _chicken_ being used, at present, almost exclusively in the singular number, although, originally, it was, probably, the plural of _chick_. So Wallis considered it:--"At olim etiam per -en vel -yn formabant pluralia; quorum pauca admodum adhuc retinemus. Ut, _an ox_, _a chick_, pluralitur _oxen_, _chicken_ (sunt qui dicunt in singulari _chicken_, et in plurali _chickens_)." _Chick_, _chick-en_, _chick-en-s_. _Fern_.--According to Wallis the -n in _fer-n_ is the -en in _oxen_, in other words a plural termination:--"A _fere_ (_filix_) pluraliter _fern_ (verum nunc plerumque _fern_ utroque numero dicitur, sed et in plurali _ferns_); nam _fere_ et _feres_ prope obsoleta sunt." Subject to this view, the word _fer-n-s_ would exhibit the same phenomenon as the word _chicken-s_. It is doubtful, however, whether Wallis's view be correct. A reason for believing the -n to be radical is presented by the Anglo-Saxon form _fearn_, and the Old High German, _varam_. _Women_.--Pronounced _wimmen_, as opposed to the singular form _woomman_. Probably an instance of accommodation. _Houses_.--Pronounced _houz-ez_. The same peculiarity in the case of s and z, as occurs between f and v in words like _life_, _lives_, &c. _Paths_, _youths_.--Pronounced _padhz_, _yoodhz_. The same peculiarity in the case of þ and ð, as occurs between s and z in the words _house_, _houses_. "Finita in f plerumque alleviantur in plurali numero, substituendo v; ut _wife_, _wives_, &c. Eademque alleviatio est etiam in s et th, quamvis retento charactere, in _house_, _cloth_, _path_." § 205. The words sounded _houz-ez_, _padh-z_, _yoodh-z_, taken along with the extract from Wallis, lead us to an important class of words.--§ 199 b. § 206. Certain words ending in f, like _loaf_, _wife_, &c. The regular plural of these would be _loafs_, _wifes_, pronounced _loafce_, _wifce_, &c. But this is not the case. The sound added to the final f is the sound of z, not that of s. And the plurals are sounded _loavz_, _wivz_ (_wivez_, _weivz_). Furthermore, the sound of the final f is changed to that of v; in other words, the _first_ of the two letters is accommodated to the second, in violation to the rule of § 199 b. Can this be explained? Perhaps it can. In the Swedish language the letter f has the sound of v; so that _staf_ is sounded _stav_. Again, in the allied languages the words in question end in the _flat_ (not the _sharp_) mute,--_weib_, _laub_, _calb_, _halb_, _stab_, &c. = _wife_, _leaf_, _calf_, _half_, _staff_. This makes it probable that, originally, the f in _wife_, _loaf_, &c. was sounded as v; so that the singular forms were _wive_, _loav_. If so, the _plural is_ perfectly normal; it being the _singular_ form on which the irregularity lies. * * * * * CHAPTER IV. ON THE CASES. § 207. The extent to which there are, in the English language, cases, depends on the meaning which we attach to the word case. In the term _a house of a father_, the idea expressed by the words _of a father_, is an idea of relation between them and the word _house_. This idea is an idea of property or possession. The relation between the words _father_ and _house_ may be called the _possessive_ relation. This relation, or connexion, between the two words, is expressed by the preposition _of_. In the term _a father's house_, the idea is, there or thereabouts, the same; the relation or connexion between the two words being the same. The expression, however, differs. In _a father's house_ the relation, or connexion, is expressed, not by a preposition, but by a change of form, _father_ becoming _father's_. _He gave the house to a father_.--Here the words _father_ and _house_ stand in another sort of relationship, the relationship being expressed by the preposition _to_. The idea _to a father_ differs from the idea _of a father_, in being expressed in one way only; viz., by the preposition. There is no second mode of expressing it by a change of form, as was done with _father's_. _The father taught the child_.--Here there is neither preposition nor change of form. The connexion between the words _father_ and _child_ is expressed by the arrangement only. § 208. Now if the relation alone between two words constitute a case, the words _a child_, _to a father_, _of a father_, and _father's_, are all equally cases; of which one may be called the accusative, another the dative, a third the genitive, and so on. Perhaps, however, the relationship alone does not constitute a case. Perhaps there is a necessity of either the addition of a preposition (as in _of a father_), or of a change in form (as in _father's_). In this case (although _child_ be not so) _father's_, _of a father_, and _to a father_, are all equally cases. Now it has long been remarked, that if the use of a preposition constitute a case, there must be as many cases in a language as there are prepositions, and that "_above a man_, _beneath a man_, _beyond a man_, _round about a man_, _within a man_, _without a man_, shall be cases as well as _of a man_, _to a man_, and _with a man_." § 209. For etymological purposes, therefore, it is necessary to limit the meaning of the word case; and, as a sort of definition, it may be laid down that _where there is no change of form there is no case_. With this remark, the English language may be compared with the Latin. _Latin._ _English._ _Sing. Nom._ _Pater_ _a father._ _Gen._ _Patris_ _a father's._ _Dat._ _Patri_ _to a father._ _Acc._ _Patrem_ _a father._ _Abl._ _Patre_ _from a father._ Here, since in the Latin language there are five changes of form, whilst in English there are but _two_, there are (as far, at least, as the word _pater_ and _father_ are concerned) three more cases in Latin than in English. It does not, however, follow that because in the particular word _father_ we have but two cases, there may not be other words wherein there are more than two. § 210. Neither does it follow, that because two words may have the _same form_ they are necessarily in the _same case_; a remark which leads to the distinction between _a real and an accidental identity of form_. In the language of the Anglo-Saxons the genitive cases of the words _smið_, _ende_, and _dæg_, were respectively, _smiðes_, _endes_, and _dæges_; whilst the nominative plurals were, _smiðas_, _endas_, and _dægas_. But when a change took place, by which the vowel of the last syllable in each word was ejected, the result was, that the forms of the genitive singular and the nominative plural, originally different, became one and the same; so that the identity of the two cases is an accident. This fact relieves the English grammarian from a difficulty. The nominative plural and the genitive singular are, in the present language of England, identical; the apostrophe in _father's_ being a mere matter of orthography. However, there was _once_ a difference. This modifies the previous statement, which may now stand thus:--_for a change of case there must be a change of form existing or presumed_. § 211. _The number of our cases and the extent of language over which they spread._--In the English language there is undoubtedly a _nominative_ case. This occurs in substantives, adjectives, and pronouns (_father_, _good_, _he_) equally. It is found in both numbers. § 212. _Accusative._--Some call this the _objective_ case. The words _him_ and _them_ (whatever they may have been originally) are now (to a certain extent) true accusatives. The accusative case is found in pronouns only. _Thee, me, us_, and _you_ are, to a certain extent, true accusatives. These are accusative thus far: 1. They are not derived from any other case. 2. They are distinguished from the forms _I_, _my_, &c. 3. Their meaning is accusative. Nevertheless, they are only imperfect accusatives. They have no sign of case, and are distinguished by negative characters only. One word in the present English is probably a true accusative in the strict sense of the term, viz., the word _twain_ = _two_. The -n in _twai-n_ is the -n in _hine_ = _him_ and _hwone_ = _whom_. This we see from the following inflection:-- _Neut._ _Masc._ _Fem._ _N. and Acc._ Twá, Twégen, Twá. \____ _____/ \/ _Abl. and Dat._ Twám, Twæm. _Gen._ Twegra, Twega. Although nominative as well as accusative, I have little doubt as to the original character of _twégen_ being accusative. The -n is by no means radical; besides which, it _is_ the sign of an accusative case, and is _not_ the sign of a nominative. § 213. _Dative._--In the antiquated word _whilom_ (_at times_), we have a remnant of the old dative in -m. The _sense_ of the word is abverbial; its form, however, is that of a dative case. § 214. _Genitive._--Some call this the possessive case. It is found in substantives and pronouns (_father's, his_), but not in adjectives. It is formed like the nominative plural, by the addition of the lene sibilant (_father, fathers; buck, bucks_); or if the word end in -s, by that of -es (_boxes_, _judges_, &c.) It is found in both numbers: _the men's hearts_; _the children's bread_. In the plural number, however, it is rare; so rare, indeed, that wherever the plural ends in s (as it almost always does), there is no genitive. If it were not so, we should have such words as _fatherses_, _foxeses_, _princeses_, &c. § 215. _Instrumental._--The following extracts from Rask's "Anglo-Saxon Grammar," teach us that there exist in the present English two powers of the word spelt _t-h-e_, or of the so-called definite article--"The demonstrative pronouns are _þæt, se, seó_ (_id, is, ea_), which are also used for the article; and _þis, þes, þeós_ (_hoc, hic, hæc_). They are thus declined:-- _Neut._ _Masc._ _Fem._ _Neut._ _Masc._ _Fem._ _Sing N._ þæt se seó þis þes þeós. _A._ þæt þone þá þis þisne þás. \____ _____/ \_____ _____/ \/ \/ _Abl._ þý þære þise þisse. _D._ þám þære þisum þisse. _G._ þæs þære þises þisse. \_____ _____/ \_____ _____/ \/ \/ _Plur. N. and A._ þá þás. _Abl. and D._ þám þisum. _G._ þára. þissa. "The indeclinable _þe_ is often used instead of _þæt, se, seó_, in all cases, but especially with a relative signification, and, in later times, as an article. Hence the English article _the_. "_þý_ seems justly to be received as a proper _ablativus instrumenti_, as it occurs often in this character, even in the masculine gender; as, _mid þý áþe_ = _with that oath_ ("Inæ Leges," 53). And in the same place in the dative, _on þæm áþe_ = _in that oath_."--Pp. 56, 57. Hence the _the_ that has originated out of the Anglo-Saxon _þý_ is one word; whilst the _the_ that has originated out of the Anglo-Saxon _þe_, another. The latter is the common article: the former the _the_ in expressions like _all the more_, _all the better_ = _more by all that_, _better by all that_, and the Latin phrases _eo majus_, _eo melius_. That _why_ is in the same case with the instrumental _the_ ( = _þý_) may be seen from the following Anglo-Saxon inflexion of the interrogative pronoun:-- _Neut._ _Masc._ _N._ Hwæt Hwá _A._ Hwæt Hwone (hwæne). \_____ _____/ \/ _Abl._ _Hwi_ _D._ Hwám (hwæm) _G._ Hwæs. Hence, then, in _the_ and _why_ we have instrumental ablatives, or, simply, _instrumentals_. § 216. _The determination of cases._--How do we determine cases? In other words, why do we call _him_ and _them_ accusatives rather than datives or genitives? By one of two means; viz., either by the _sense_ or the _form_. Suppose that in the English language there were ten thousand dative cases and as many accusatives. Suppose, also, that all the dative cases ended in -m, and all the accusatives in some other letter. It is very evident that, whatever might be the meaning of the words _him_ and _them_ their form would be dative. In this case the meaning being accusatives, and the form dative, we should doubt which test to take. My own opinion is, that it would be convenient to determine cases by the _form_ of the word _alone_; so that, even if a word had a dative sense only once, where it had an accusative sense ten thousand times, such a word should be said to be in the dative case. Now the words _him_ and _them_ (to which we may add _whom_) were once dative cases;[48] -m in Anglo-Saxon being the sign of the dative case. In the time of the Anglo-Saxons their sense coincided with their form. At present they are dative forms with an accusative meaning. Still, as the word _give_ takes after it a dative case, we have, even now, in the sentence, _give it him_, _give it them_, remnants of the old dative sense. To say _give it to him_, _to them_, is unnecessary and pedantic: neither do I object to the expression, _whom shall I give it?_ If ever the _formal_ test become generally recognised and consistently adhered to, _him_, _them_, and _whom_ will be called datives with a latitude of meaning; and then the only true and unequivocal accusatives in the English language will be the forms _you_, _thee_, _us_, _me_, and _twain_. § 217. _Analysis of cases._--In the word _children's_ we are enabled to separate the word into three parts. 1. The root _child_. 2. The plural signs r and en. 3. The sign of the genitive case, s. In this case the word is said to be analysed, since we not only take it to pieces, but also give the respective powers of each of its elements; stating which denotes the case, and which the number. Although it is too much to say that the analysis of every case of every number can be thus effected, it ought always to be attempted. § 218. _The true nature of the genitive form in 's._--It is a common notion that the genitive form _father's_ is contracted from _father his_. The expression in our liturgy, _for Jesus Christ his sake_, which is merely a pleonastic one, is the only foundation for this assertion. As the idea, however, is not only one of the commonest, but also one of the greatest errors in etymology, the following three statements are given for the sake of contradiction to it. 1. The expression the _Queen's Majesty_ is not capable of being reduced to the _Queen his Majesty_. 2. In the form _his_ itself, the s has precisely the power that it has in _father's_, &c. Now _his_ cannot be said to arise out of _he_ + _his_. 3. In the Slavonic, Lithuanic, and classical tongues, the genitive ends in s, just as it does in English; so that even if the words _father his_ would account for the English word _father's_, it would not account for the Sanskrit genitive _pad-as_, of a foot; the Zend _dughdhar-s_, of a daughter; the Lithuanic _dugter-s_; the Greek [Greek: odont-os]; the Latin _dent-is_, &c. * * * * * CHAPTER V. THE PERSONAL PRONOUNS. § 219. _I_, _we_, _us_, _me_, _thou_, _ye_.--These constitute the true personal pronouns. From _he_, _she_, and _it_, they differ in being destitute of gender. These latter words are demonstrative rather than personal, so that there are in English true personal pronouns for the first two persons only. § 220. The usual declension of the personal pronouns is exceptionable. _I_ and _me_, _thou_ and _ye_, stand in no etymological relations to each other. The true view of the words is, that they are not irregular but defective. _I_ has no _oblique_, and _me_ no nominative case. And so it is with the rest. § 221. _You_.--As far as the practice of the present mode of speech is concerned, the word _you_ is a _nominative_ form; since we say _you move_, _you are moving_, _you were speaking_. Why should it not be treated as such? There is no absolute reason why it should not. The Anglo-Saxon form for _you_ was _eow_, for _ye_, _ge_. Neither bears any sign of case at all, so that, form for form, they are equally and indifferently nominative and accusative. Hence, it, perhaps, is more logical to say that a certain form (_you_), is used _either_ as a nominative or accusative, than to say that the accusative case is used instead of a nominative. It is clear that _you_ can be used instead of _ye_ only so far as it is nominative in power. _Ye_.--As far as the evidence of such expressions as _get on with ye_ is concerned, the word _ye_ is an accusative form. The reasons why it should or should not be treated as such are involved in the previous paragraph. § 222. _Me_.--carrying out the views just laid down, and admitting _you_ to be a nominative, or _quasi_-nominative case, we may extend the reasoning to the word _me_, and call it also a secondary or equivocal nominative; inasmuch as such phrases as _it is me_ = _it is I_ are common. Now to call such expressions incorrect English is to assume the point. No one says that _c'est moi_ is bad French, and that _c'est je_ is good. § 223. _Caution._--Observe, however, that the expression _it is me_ = _it is I_ will not justify the use of _it is him_, _it is her_ = _it is he_ and _it is she_. _Me_, _ye_, _you_, are what may be called _indifferent forms_, i.e., nominative as much as accusative, and accusative as much as nominative. _Him_ and _her_, on the other hand, are not indifferent. The -m and -r are respectively the signs of cases other than the nominative. § 224. Again: the reasons which allow the form _you_ to be considered as a nominative plural, on the strength of its being used for _ye_, will not allow it to be considered a nominative singular on the strength of its being used for _thou_. § 225. In phrases like _you are speaking_, &c., even when applied to a single individual, the idea is really plural; in other words, the courtesy consists in treating _one_ person as _more than one_, and addressing him as such, rather than in using a plural form in a singular sense. It is certain that, grammatically considered, _you_ = _thou_ is a plural, since the verb with which it agrees is plural:--_you are speaking_, not _you art speaking_. * * * * * CHAPTER VI. ON THE TRUE REFLECTIVE PRONOUN IN THE GOTHIC LANGUAGES, AND ON ITS ABSENCE IN ENGLISH. § 226. A true reflective pronoun is wanting in English. In other words, there are no equivalents to the Latin forms _sui_, _sibi_, _se_. Nor yet are there any equivalents to the forms _suus, sua, suum_: since _his_ and _her_ are the equivalents to _ejus_ and _illius_, and are not adjectives but genitive cases. At the first view, this last sentence seems unnecessary. It might seem superfluous to state, that, if there were no such primitive form as _se_, there could be no such secondary form as _suus_. Such, however, is not the case. _Suus_ might exist in the language, and yet _se_ be absent; in other words, the derivative form might have continued whilst the original one had become extinct. Such is really the case with the _Old_ Frisian. The reflective personal form, the equivalent to _se_, is lost, whilst the reflective possessive form, the equivalent to _suus_, is found. In the _Modern_ Frisian, however, both forms are lost. * * * * * CHAPTER VII. THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS, &c. § 227. The demonstrative pronouns are, 1. _He, it_. 2. _She_. 3. _This, that_. 4. _The_. _He_, _she_, and _it_, generally looked on as personal, are here treated as demonstrative pronouns, for the following reasons. 1. The personal pronouns form an extremely natural class, if the pronouns of the two first persons be taken by themselves. This is not the case if they be taken along with _he_, _it_, and _she_. 2. The idea expressed by _he_, _it_, and _she_ is naturally that of demonstrativeness. In the Latin language _is, ea, id_; _ille, illa, illud_; _hic, hæc, hoc_, are demonstrative pronouns in sense, as well as in declension. 3. The plural forms _they, them_, in the present English, are the plural forms of the root of _that_, a true demonstrative pronoun; so that even if _he_, _she_, and _it_ could be treated as personal pronouns, _they_ could not. 4. The word _she_ has grown out of the Anglo-Saxon _seó_. Now _seó_ was in Anglo-Saxon the feminine form of the definite article; the definite article itself being originally a demonstrative pronoun. § 228. Compared with the Anglo-Saxon the present English stands as follows:-- _She_.--The Anglo-Saxon form _heó_, being lost to the language, is replaced by the feminine article _seó_. § 229. _Her_.--This is a case, not of the present _she_, but of the Anglo-Saxon _heó_: so that _she_ may be said to be defective in the oblique cases, and _her_ to be defective in the nominative. _Him_.--A dative form, which has replaced the Anglo-Saxon _hine_. When used as a dative, it was neuter as well as masculine. _His_.--Originally neuter as well as masculine. Now as a neuter, replaced by _its_--"et quidem ipsa vox _his_, ut et interrogativum _whose_, nihil aliud sunt quam _hee's_, _who's_, ubi s omnino idem præstat quod in aliis possessivis. Similiter autem _his_ pro _hee's_ eodem errore quo nonnunquam _bin_ pro _been_; item _whose_ pro _who's_ eodem errore quo _done_, _gone_, _knowne_, _growne_, &c., pro _doen_, _goen_, _knowen,_ vel _do'n_, _go'n_, _know'n_, _grow'n_; utrobique contra analogiam linguæ; sed usu defenditur."--Wallis, c.v. _It_.--Changed from the Anglo-Saxon _hit_, by the ejection of h. The t is no part of the original word, but a sign of the neuter gender, forming it regularly from _he_. The same neuter sign is preserved in the Latin _id_ and _illud_. _Its_.--In the course of time the nature of the neuter sign t, in _it_, the form being found in but a few words, became misunderstood. Instead of being looked on as an affix, it passed for part of the original word. Hence was formed from _it_ the anomalous genitive _its_ superseding the Saxon _his_. The same was the case with-- _Hers_.--The r is no part of the original word, but the sign of the dative case. These formations are of value in the history of cases. § 230. _Theirs_.--In the same predicament with _hers_ and _its_; either the case of an adjective, or a case formed from a case. _Than_ or _then_, and _there_.--Although now adverbs, they were once demonstrative pronouns, in a certain case and in a certain gender, viz., _than_ and _then_ masculine accusative and singular, _there_ feminine dative and singular. § 231. An exhibition of the Anglo-Saxon declension is the best explanation of the English. Be it observed, that the cases marked in italics are found in the present language. I. _Se, seó_ ( = _she_). Of this word we meet two forms only, both of the singular number, and both in the nominative case; viz., masc., _se_; fem. _seó_ ( = the). The neuter gender and the other cases of the article were taken from the pronoun _þæt_ ( = that). II. _þæt_ ( = that, the), and _þis_ ( = this). _Neut._ _Masc._ _Fem._ _Neut._ _Masc._ _Fem._ _Sing. Nom._ _þæt_ -- -- _þis_ þes þeós. _Acc._ _þæt_ _þone_ þâ þis þisne þás. _Abl._ _þy_ _þy_ _þære._ _þise_ þise þisse. _Dat._ þám þám _þære._ þisum þisum þisse. _Gen._ þæs þæs _þære._ þises þises þisse. \__________ _________/ \_________ _________/ \/ \/ _Plur. Nom. Acc._ _þá._ _þás._ _Abl. Dat._ _þám._ þisum. _Gen._ _þára._ þissa. III. _Hit_ ( = it), (_he_ = he), _heó_ ( = she). _Sing. Nom._ _hit_ _he_ heó. _Acc._ _hit_ hine hí. _Dat._ _him_ _him_ _hire._ _Gen._ _his_ _his_ _hire._ \_________ __________/ \/ _Plur. Nom. Acc._ hi _Dat._ him (heom). _Gen._ hira (heora). IV. _þe_ (the)--Undeclined, and used for all cases and genders. § 232. _These_.--Here observe-- 1st. That the s is no inflection, but a radical part of the word, like the s in _geese_. 2nd. That the Anglo-Saxon form is _þás_. These facts create difficulties in respect to the word _these_. Mr. Guest's view is, perhaps, the best; viz., that the plural element of the word is the final -e, and that this -e is the old English and Anglo-Saxon adjective plural; so that _thes-e_ is formed from _this_, as _gode_ ( = _boni_) is from _god_ ( = _bonus_). The nominative plural in the Old English adjective ended in -e; as, _Singular._ _Plural._ _M._ _F._ _N._ _M._ _F._ _N._ _God_, _god_, _god_, _gode_. In Old English MSS. this plural in -e is general. It occurs not only in adjectives and pronouns as a regular inflection, but even as a plural of the genitive _his_, that word being treated as a nominative singular; so that _hise_ is formed from _his_, as _sui_ from _suus_, or as _eji_ might have been formed from _ejus_; provided that in the Latin language this last word had been mistaken for a nominative singular. The following examples are Mr. Guest's. 1. In these lay a gret multitude of _syke_ men, _blinde_, crokid, and _drye_.--_Wicliffe_, Jon. v. 2. In all the orders foure is non that can So much of dalliance and faire language, He hadde ymade ful many a marriage-- His tippet was ay farsed ful of knives, And pinnes for to given _faire_ wives.--_Chau._, Prol. 3. And _al_ the cuntre of Judee wente out to him, and _alle_ men of Jerusalem.--_Wicliffe_, Mark i. 4. He ghyueth lif to _alle_ men, and brething, and _alle_ thingis; and made of von _al_ kynde of men to inhabit on _al_ the face of the erthe.--_Wicliffe_, Dedis of Apostlis, xvii. 5. That fadres sone which _alle_ thinges wrought; And _all_, that wrought is with a skilful thought, The Gost that from the fader gan procede, Hath souled hem.--_Chau._, The Second Nonnes Tale. 6. And _alle_ we that ben in this aray And maken _all_ this lamentation, We losten _alle_ our husbondes at that toun.--_Chau._, The Knightes Tales. 7. A _good_ man bryngeth forth _gode_ thingsis of _good_ tresore.--_Wicliffe_, Matt. xii. 8. So every _good_ tree maketh _gode_ fruytis, but an yvel tree maketh yvel fruytes. A _good_ tree may not mak yvel fruytis, neither an yvel tree may make _gode_ fruytis. Every tree that maketh not _good_ fruyt schal be cut down.--_Wicliffe_, Matt. vii. 9. Men loveden more darknessis than light for her werkes weren _yvele_, for ech man that doeth _yvel_, hateth the light.--_Wicliffe_, John iii. 10. And _othere_ seedis felden among thornes wexen up and strangliden hem, and _othere_ seedis felden into good lond and gaven fruyt, sum an hundred fold, _another_ sixty fold, an _other_ thritty fold, &c.--_Wicliffe_, Matt. xiii. 11. Yet the while he spake to the puple lo _his_ mother and _hise_ brethren stonden withoute forth.--_Wicliffe_, Mat. xii. 12. And _hise_ disciplis camen and taken _his_ body.--_Wicliffe_, Matt., xiv. 13. When _thise_ Bretons tuo were fled out of _this_ lond Ine toke his feaute of alle, &c.--_Rob Brunne_, p. 3. 14. _This_ is thilk disciple that bereth witnessyng of _these_ thingis, and wroot them.--_Wicliffe_, John xxi. 15. Seye to us in what powers thou doist _these_ thingis, and who is he that gaf to thee _this_ power.--_Wicliffe_, Luke xx. § 233. _Those_.--Perhaps the Anglo-Saxon _þá_ with s added. Perhaps the _þás_ from _þis_ with its power altered. Rask, in his Anglo-Saxon Grammar, writes "from _þis_ we find, in the plural, _þæs_ for _þás_. From which afterwards, with a distinction in signification, _these_ and _those_." The English form _they_ is illustrated by the Anglo-Saxon form _ðage_ = _þá_. The whole doctrine of the forms in question has yet to assume a satisfactory shape. The present declension of the demonstrative pronouns is as follows:-- A. _She_.--Defective in the oblique cases. B. _He_. _Masc._ _Neut._ _Fem._ _Nom._ He It (from _hit_) -- _Acc._ Him It Her. _Dat._ Him -- Her. _Gen._ His -- Her. _Secondary Gen._ -- Its Hers. No plural form. C. I. _That_. _Neut._ _Masc._ _Fem._ _Sing. Nom._ That -- -- _Acc._ That Than, then[49] -- _Dat._ -- -- There.[49] _Instrumental_ _Thence._ _Plur. Nom._ They.[50] _Acc._ Them.[50] _Gen._ Their.[50] _Secondary Gen._ Theirs.[50] II. _Singular_, This. _Plural_, These. III. _Those_. IV. _The_--Undeclined. * * * * * CHAPTER VIII. THE RELATIVE, INTERROGATIVE, AND CERTAIN OTHER PRONOUNS. § 234. In the relative and interrogative pronouns, _who_, _what_, _whom_, _whose_, we have, expressed by a change of form, a neuter gender, _what_; a dative case _whom_; and a genitive case, _whose_: the true power of the s (viz., as the sign of a case) being obscured by the orthographical addition of the e mute. To these may be added, 1. the adverb _why_, originally the ablative form _hvi_ (_quo modo?_ _quâ viâ?_). 2. The adverb _where_, a feminine dative, like _there_. 3. _When_, a masculine accusative (in Anglo-Saxon _hwæne_), and analogous to _then_. The two sounds in the Danish words _hvi_, _hvad_, &c., and the two sounds in the English, _what_, _when_ (Anglo-Saxon, _hwæt_, _hwæne_) account for the forms _why_ and _how_. In the first the w alone, in the second the h alone, is sounded. The Danish for _why_ is _hvi_, pronounced _vi_. § 235. The following remarks (some of them not strictly etymological) apply to a few of the remaining pronouns. _Same_.--Wanting in Anglo-Saxon, where it was replaced by the word _ylca_, _ylce_. Probably derived from the Norse. _Self_.--In _myself_, _thyself_, _herself_, _ourselves_, _yourselves_, a substantive (or with a substantival power), and preceded by a genitive case. In _himself_ and _themselves_ an adjective (or with an adjectival power), and preceded by an accusative case. _Itself_ is equivocal, since we cannot say whether its elements are _it_ and _self_, or _its_ and _self_; the s having been dropped in utterance. It is very evident that either the form like _himself_, or the form like _thyself_, is exceptionable; in other words, that the use of the word is inconsistent. As this inconsistency is as old as the Anglo-Saxons, the history of the word gives us no elucidation. In favour of the forms like _myself_ (_self_ being a substantive), are the following facts:-- 1. The plural word _selves_, a substantival, and not an adjectival form. 2. The Middle High German phrases _mîn lîp_, _dîn lîp_, _my body_, _thy body_, equivalent in sense to _myself_, _thyself_. 3. The circumstance that if _self_ be dealt with as a substantive, such phrases as _my own self_, _his own great self_, &c., can be used; whereby the language is a gainer. "Vox _self_, pluraliter _selves_, quamvis etiam pronomen a quibusdam censeatur (quoniam ut plurimum per Latinum _ipse_ redditur), est tamen plane nomen substantivum, cui quidem vix aliquod apud Latinos substantivum respondet; proxime tamen accedet vox _persona_ vel _propria persona_ ut _my self_, _thy self_, _our selves_, _your selves_, &c. (_ego ipse_, _tu ipse_, _nos ipsi_, _vos ipsi_, &c.), ad verbum _mea persona_, _tua persona_, &c. Fateor tamen _himself_, _itself_, _themselves_, vulgo dici pro _his-self_, _its-self_, _theirselves_; at (interposito _own_) _his own self_, &c., _ipsius propria persona_, &c."--Wallis. c. vii. 4. The fact that many persons actually say _hisself_ and _theirselves_. _Whit_.--As in the phrase _not a whit_. This enters in the compound pronouns _aught_ and _naught_. _One_.--As in the phrase _one does so and so_. From the French _on_. Observe that this is from the Latin _homo_, in Old French _hom_, _om_. In the Germanic tongues _man_ is used in the same sense: _man sagt_ = _one says_ = _on dit_. _One_, like _self_ and _other_, is so far a substantive, that it is inflected. Gen. sing, _one's own self_: plural, _my wife and little ones are well_. _Derived pronouns._--_Any_, in Anglo-Saxon, _ænig_. In Old High German we have _einîc_ = _any_, and _einac_ = _single_. In Anglo-Saxon _ânega_ means _single_. In Middle High German _einec_ is always single. In New High German _einig_ means, 1. _a certain person_ (_quidam_), 2. _agreeing_; _einzig_, meaning _single_. In Dutch _ênech_ has both meanings. This indicates the word _án_, _one_, as the root of the word in question. _Compound pronouns._--_Which_, as has been already stated more than once, is most incorrectly called the neuter of _who_. Instead of being a neuter, it is a compound word. The adjective _leiks_, _like_, is preserved in the Moeso-Gothic words _galeiks_ and _missaleiks_. In Old High German the form is _lih_, in Anglo-Saxon _lic_. Hence we have Moeso-Gothic _hvêleiks_; Old High German, _huëlih_; Anglo-Saxon, _huilic_ and _hvilc_; Old Frisian, _hwelik_; Danish, _hvilk-en_; German, _welch_; Scotch, _whilk_; English, _which_. The same is the case with-- 1. _Such_.--Moeso-Gothic, _svaleiks_; Old High German, _sôlîh_; Old Saxon, _sulîc_; Anglo-Saxon, _svilc_; German, _solch_; English, _such_. Rask's derivation of the Anglo-Saxon _swilc_ from _swa-ylc_, is exceptionable. 2. _Thilk_.--An old English word, found in the provincial dialects, as _thick_, _thuck_, _theck_, and hastily derived by Tyrwhitt, Ritson, and Weber, from _së ylca_, is found in the following forms: Moeso-Gothic, _þéleiks_; Norse, _þvilikr_. 3. _Ilk_.--Found in the Scotch, and always preceded by the article; _the ilk_, or _that ilk_, meaning _the same_. In Anglo-Saxon this word is _ycla_, preceded also by the article _se ylca_, _seó ylce_, _þæt ylce_. In English, as seen above, the word is replaced by _same_. In no other Gothic dialect does it occur. According to Grimm, this is no simple word, but a compound one, of which some such word as _ei_ is the first, and _lîc_ the second element. _Aught_.--In Moeso-Gothic is found the particle, _aiv_, _ever_, but only in negative propositions; _ni_ (_not_) preceding it. Its Old High German form is _êo_, _io_; in Middle High German, _ie_; in New High German, _je_; in Old Saxon, _io_; in Anglo-Saxon, â; in Norse, æ. Combined with this particle the word _whit_ (_thing_) gives the following forms: Old High German, _êowiht_; Anglo-Saxon, _âviht_; Old Frisian, _âwet_; English _aught_. The word _naught_ is _aught_ preceded by the negative particle. _Each_.--The particle _gi_ enters, like the particle in the composition of pronouns. Old High German, _êogalîher_, every one; _êocalih_, all; Middle High German, _iegelich_; New High German, _jeglich_; Anglo-Saxon, _ælc_; English, _each_; the l being dropped, as in _which_ and _such_. _Ælc_, as the original of the English _each_ and the Scotch _ilka_,[51] must by no means be confounded with the word _ylce_, _the same_. _Every_ in Old English, _everich_, _everech_, _everilk one_, is _ælc_, preceded by the particle _ever_. (Grimm. D. G. iii. 54.) _Either_.--Old High German, _êogahuëdar_; Middle High German, _iegewëder_; Anglo-Saxon, _æghväðer_, _ægðer_; Old Frisian, _eider_. _Neither_.--The same with the negative article prefixed. _Neither_ : _either_ :: _naught_ : _aught_. § 236. _Other_, _whether_.--These words, although derived forms, being simpler than some that have preceded, might fairly have been dealt with before. They make, however, a transition from the present to the succeeding chapter, and so find a place here. A. _First_, it may be stated of them that the idea which they express is not that of _one out of many_, but that of _one out of two_. 1. In Sanscrit there are two forms, a) _kataras_, the same word as _whether_, meaning _which out of two_; b) _katamas, which out of many_. So also _êkateras, one out of two_; _êkatamas, one out of many_. In Greek the Ionic form [Greek: koteros (poteros]; in Latin, _uter_, _neuter_, _alter_; and in Moeso-Gothic, _hvathar_, have the same form and the same meaning. 2. In the Scandinavian language the word _anden_, Dano-Saxon, _annar_, Iceland. corresponds to the English word _second_, and not the German _zweite_: e.g., _Karl den Anden, Charles the Second_. Now _anthar_ is the older form of _other_. B. _Secondly_, it may be stated of them, that the termination -er is the same termination that we find in the comparative degree. 1. The idea expressed by the comparative degree is the comparison, not of _many_ but of _two_ things; _this is better than that_. 2. In all the Indo-European languages where there are pronouns in -ter, there is also a comparative degree in -ter. See next chapter. 3. As the Sanscrit form _kataras_ corresponds with the comparative degree, where there is the comparison of _two things with each other_; so the word _katamas_ is a superlative form; and in the superlative degree lies the comparison of _many_ things with each other. Hence _other_ and _whether_ (to which may be added _either_ and _neither_) are pronouns with the comparative form. _Other_ has the additional peculiarity of possessing the plural form _others_. Hence, like _self_, it is, in the strictest sense, a substantival pronoun. * * * * * CHAPTER IX. ON CERTAIN FORMS IN -ER. § 237. Preparatory to the consideration of the degrees of comparison, it is necessary to make some remarks upon a certain class of words, which, with considerable differences of signification, all agree in one fact, viz., all terminate in -er, or _t-er_. 1. Certain pronouns, as _ei-th-er_, _n-ei-th-er_, _whe-th-er_, or _o-th-er_. 2. Certain prepositions and adverbs, as _ov-er_, _und-er_, _af-t-er_. 3. Certain adjectives, with the form of the comparative, but the power of the positive degree; as _upp-er_, _und-er_, _inn-er_, _out-er_, _hind-er_. 4. All adjectives of the comparative degree; as _wis-er_, _strong-er_, _bett-er_, &c. Now what is the idea common to all these words, expressed by the sign -er, and connecting the four divisions into one class? It is not the mere idea of comparison; although it is the comparative degree, to the expression of which the affix in question is more particularly applied. Bopp, who has best generalised the view of these forms, considers the fundamental idea to be that of _duality_. In the comparative degree we have a relation between one object and _some_ other object like it, or a relation between two single elements of comparison: _A is wiser than B_. In the superlative degree we have a relation between one object and _all_ others like it, or a relation between one single and one complex element of comparison: _A is wiser than B, C, D_, &c. "As in comparatives a relation between _two_, and in superlatives a relation between _many_, lies at the bottom, it is natural that their suffixes should be transferred to other words, whose chief notion is individualised through that of duality or plurality."--"Vergleichende Grammatik," § 292, Eastwick's and Wilson's Translation. The most important proofs of the view adduced by Bopp are,-- 1. The Sanskrit form _kataras_ = _which of _two_ persons?_ is a comparative form; whilst _katamas_ = _which of more than two persons?_ a superlative form. Similarly, _êkataras_ = _one of two persons_; _êkatamas_ = _one of more than two persons_. 2. The Greek forms, [Greek: hekateros] = _each_ (_or either_) _out of two persons_; whilst [Greek: hekastos] = _each or any out of more than two persons_. § 238. The more important of the specific modifications of the general idea involved in the comparison of two objects are,-- 1. Contrariety: as in _inner_, _outer_, _under_, _upper_, _over_. In Latin the words for _right_ and _left_ end in -er,--_dexter_, _sinister_. 2. Choice in the way of an alternative; as _either_, _neither_, _whether_, _other_. § 239. _Either_, _neither_, _other_, _whether_.--It has just been stated that the general fundamental idea common to all these forms is that of _choice between one of two objects in the way of an alternative_. Thus far the termination -er in _either_, &c., is the termination -er in the true comparatives, _brav-er_, _wis-er_, &c. _Either_ and _neither_ are common pronouns. _Other_, like _one_, is a pronoun capable of taking the plural form of a substantive (_others_), and also that of the genitive case (_the other's money, the other's bread_). _Whether_ is a pronoun in the almost obsolete form _whether_ ( = _which_) _of the two do you prefer_, and a conjunction in sentences like _whether will you do this or not_? The use of the form _others_ is recent. "_They are taken out of the way as all other._"--Job. "_And leave their riches for other._"--Psalms. * * * * * CHAPTER X. THE COMPARATIVE DEGREE. § 240. There are four leading facts here,-- 1. _The older form in -s._ In English we say old-er, bett-er, sweet-er; in Old High German they similarly said, alt-iro, bets-iro, suats-iro; but in Moeso-Gothic the forms were ald-iza, bat-iza, sut-iza. 2. _Adverbs_ are susceptible of comparison; e.g.--_Come as soon as you can, but do not come sooner than is convenient_. 3. The Anglo-Saxon comparison of the adverbs is different from that of the adjectives; there being one form in -re and -este, another in -or and -ost respectively. Now the first of these was the form taken by adjectives: as _se scearp-re sweord_ = _the sharper sword_, and _se scearp-este sword_ = _the sharpest sword_. The second, on the other hand, was the form taken by adverbs: as, _se sweord scyrð scearp-or_ = _the sword cuts sharper_, and _se sweord scyrð scearp-ost_ = _the sword cuts sharpest_. 4. In the Anglo-Saxon, the following words exhibit a change of vowel. _Positive._ _Comparative._ _Superlative._ Lang, Lengre, Lengest. _Long._ Strang, Strengre, Strengest. _Strong._ Geong, Gyngre, Gyngest. _Young._ Sceort, Scyrtre, Scyrtest. _Short._ Heáh, Hyrre, Hyhst. _High._ Eald, Yldre, Yldest. _Old._ § 241. Now the fourth of these facts explains the present forms _elder_ and _eldest_, the comparatives and superlative of _old_, besides which there are the regular forms _old-er_ and _old-est_; between which there is, however, a difference in meaning--_elder_ being used as a substantive, and having a plural form, _elders_. § 242. The abverbial forms in -or and -ost, as compared with the adjectival in -re, and -este explain the form _rather_. This rhymes to _father_; the a being full. Nevertheless, the positive form is _rather_ meaning _quick, easy_ = the classical root [Greek: rhad-] in [Greek: rhadios]. What we do _quickly_ and _willingly_ we do _preferably_. Now if the word _rather_ were an adjective, the vowel of the comparative would be sounded as the a in _fate_, as it is, however, it is abverbial, and as such is properly sounded as the a in _father_. The difference between the action of the small vowel in -re, and of the full in -or effects this difference, since o being a full vowel, it has the effect of making the a full also. § 243. The old form in -s will be considered, after notice has been taken of what may be called-- § 244. _Excess of expression._--Of this two samples have already been given: 1. in words like _songstress_; 2. in words like _children_. This may be called _excess of expression_; the feminine gender, in words like _songstress_, and the plural number, in words like _children_, being expressed twice over. In the vulgarism _betterer_ for _better_, and in the antiquated forms _worser_ for _worse_, and _lesser_ for _less_, we have, in the case of the comparatives, as elsewhere, an excess of expression. In the old High German we have the forms _betsërôro_, _mêrôro_, _êrërëra_ = _better_, _more_, _ere_. § 245. _Better_.--Although in the superlative form _best_ there is a slight variation from the strict form of that degree, the word _better_ is perfectly regular. So far, then, from truth are the current statements that the comparison of the words _good, better_, and _best_ is irregular. The inflection is not irregular, but defective. As the statement that applies to _good_, _better_, and _best_ applies to many words besides, it will be well in this place, once for all, to exhibit it in full. § 246. _Difference between a sequence in logic and a sequence in etymology._--The ideas or notions of _thou, thy, thee_, are ideas between which there is a metaphysical or logical connexion. The train of such ideas may be said to form a sequence, and such a sequence may be called a logical one. The words _thou, thy, thee_, are words between which there is a _formal_ or an _etymological_ connexion. A train of such words may be called a sequence, and such a sequence may be called an etymological one. In the case of _thou, thy, thee_, the etymological sequence tallies with the _logical_ one. The ideas of _I_, _my_, and _me_ are also in a logical sequence: but the forms _I_, _my_, and _me_ are not altogether in an etymological one. In the case of _I, my, me_, the etymological sequence does _not_ tally (or tallies imperfectly) with the logical one. This is only another way of saying that between the words _I_ and _me_ there is no connexion in etymology. It is also only another way of saying, that, in the oblique cases, _I_, and, in the nominative case, _me_, are _defective_. Now the same is the case with _good, better_, _bad, worse_, &c. _Good_ and _bad_ are defective in the comparative and superlative degrees; _better_ and _worse_ are defective in the positive; whilst between _good_ and _better_, _bad_ and _worse_, there is a sequence in logic, but no sequence in etymology. § 247. To return, however, to the word _better_; no absolute positive degree is found in any of the allied languages, and in none of the allied languages is there found any comparative form of _good_. Its root occurs in the following adverbial forms: Moeso-Gothic, _bats_; Old High German, _pats_; Old Saxon and Anglo-Saxon, _bet_; Middle High German, _baz_; Middle Dutch, _bat_, _bet_. § 248. _Worse_.--This word is one of two things. 1. It is a positive form with a comparative sense; in which case s is part of the root. 2. It is a comparative degree from the positive form wor- (vair-, wir-, vyr-), in which case s is the s of the Old Moeso-Gothic inflexion preserved in this single word. § 249. _More_.--In Anglo-Saxon this is _mâ_; in the English of the reign of Elizabeth it is _moe_; and in certain provincial dialects it is _mo_, at the present time. Notwithstanding this, i.e., the form being positive, the _power_ of the word has always been comparative, and meant _more_ rather than _much_, or _many_. § 250. _Less_.--In Anglo-Saxon _læssa_ and _læs_. Here there is no _unequivocal_ sign of the comparative degree; what, then, is the nature of the word? Is it a positive form with a comparative power like _moe_? or is it an old comparative in -s? This is undecided. What does it come from? Grimm derives it from the Moeso-Gothic root _lasiv_ = _weak_. His doctrine is doubtful. I cannot but believe that it comes from the same root as _litt-le_; where the old Frisian form _litich_, shows that the -l is no essential part of the word, and the Danish form _lille_ gets rid of the t. Still the word is difficult; indeed it is unexplained. § 251. _Near_, _nearer_.--Anglo-Saxon, _neah_; comparative, _nearre_, _near_, _nyr_; superlative, _nyhst_, _nehst_. Observe, in the Anglo-Saxon positive and superlative, the absence of the r. This shows that the English positive _near_ is the Anglo-Saxon comparative _nearre_, and that in the secondary comparative _nearer_, we have an _excess of expression_. It may be, however, that the r in _near_ is a mere point of orthography, and that it is not pronounced; since, in the English language the words _father_ and _farther_ are, for the most part, pronounced alike. § 252. _Farther_.--Anglo-Saxon _feor, fyrre, fyrrest_. The th seems euphonic, inserted by the same process that gives the [delta] in [Greek: andros], from [Greek: anêr] = man. _Further_.--Confounded with _farther_, although in reality from a different word, _fore_. Old High German, _furdir_; New High German, _der vordere_; Anglo-Saxon, _fyrðre_. § 253. _Former_.--A comparative formed from the superlative; _forma_ being such. Consequently, an instance of excess of expression, combined with irregularity. § 254. In Moeso-Gothic _spêdists_ means _last_, and _spêdiza_ = _later_. Of the word _spêdists_ two views may be taken. According to one it is the positive degree with the addition of st; according to the other, it is the comparative degree with the addition only of t. Now, Grimm and others lay down as a rule, that the superlative is formed, not directly from the positive, but indirectly through the comparative. With the exception of _worse_ and _less_, all the English comparatives end in -r: yet no superlative ends in -rt, the form being, not _wise, wiser, wisert_, but _wise, wiser, wisest_. This fact, without invalidating the notion just laid down, gives additional importance to the comparative forms in s; since it is from these, before they have changed to r, that we must suppose the superlatives to have been derived. The theory being admitted, we can, by approximation, determine the comparative antiquity of the superlative degree. It was introduced _after_ the establishment of the comparative, and _before_ the change of -s into -r. * * * * * CHAPTER XI. THE SUPERLATIVE DEGREE. § 255. The Anglo-Saxon word for _first_ was _for-m-a_. The root was _for_ = the Latin _præ_, the Greek [Greek: pro], and being the same combination which occurs in _fore_, _fore-m-ost_, &c. The m was the Anglo-Saxon sign of the superlative degree. It is the m in the Latin words _pri-m-us_, _inti-m-us_, _exti-m-us_, _ulti-m-us_, &c. It occurs even in the Gothic tongues; in other words, besides _for-m-a_. In short, m is an old sign of the superlative degree; probably older than the usual form, -st, discussed in § 254. This has some important applications. § 256. _Former_.--This is a remarkable word: it is a comparative derived from the Anglo-Saxon superlative, and its analysis is _for-m-er_, with _excess of inflexion_. § 257. _Nea-r-est_.--Here the r is no part of the original root, as may be seen in § 251. It has grown out of -ah pronounced as the a in _father_. The true forms are positive, _neah_; comparative, _neah-er_; superlative, _neah-est_. Such, to a certain extent, is really the case. § 258. _Next_.--The superlative of _nigh_, contracted from _nigh-est_. The Anglo-Saxon forms were _neah_, _nyh-st_, _neh-st_, _nyh-ste_. In Anglo-Saxon the letter h was pronounced strongly, and sounded like g or k. This fact is still shown in the spelling; as nigh. In the word _next_ this sound is preserved, slightly changed into that of k; _next_ = _nek-st_. § 259. _Upmost_, &c.--The common statement concerning words like _upmost_ is, that they are compound words, formed by the addition of the word _most_: this, however, is more than doubtful. The Anglo-Saxon language presents us with the following forms:-- _Anglo-Saxon._ _English._ Innema (inn-ema), Inmost (in-m-ost). Ûtema (ût-ma), Outmost (out-m-ost). Siðema (sið-ema), Latest. Lætema (læt-ema), Latest. Niðema (nið-ema), Nethermost (neth-er-m-ost). Forma (for-ma), Foremost (fore-m-ost). Æftema (aft-ema), Aftermost (aft-er-m-ost). Ufema (uf-ema), Upmost (up-m-ost). Hindema (hind-ema), Hindmost (hind-m-ost). Midema (mid-ema), Midmost (mid-m-ost). Now the words in question show at once, that, as far as they are concerned, the m that appears in the last syllable of each has nothing to do with the word _most_. From the words in question there was formed, in Anglo-Saxon, a regular superlative form in the usual manner; viz., by the addition of -st; as _æfte-m-est_, _fyr-m-est_, _læte-m-est_, _sið-m-est_, _yfe-m-est_, _ute-m-est_, _inne-m-est_. Hence, in the present English, the different parts of the syllable _most_ (in words like _upmost_) come from different quarters. The m is the m in the Anglo-Saxon words _innema_, &c. whilst the -st is the common sign of the superlative. Hence, in separating such words as _midmost_ into its component parts, we should write Mid-m-ost _not_ mid-most. Ut-m-ost -- ut-most. Up-m-ost -- up-most. Fore-m-ost -- fore-most. In-m-ost -- in-most. Hind-m-ost -- hind-most. Out-m-ost -- out-most. § 260. In certain words, however, the syllable _m-ost_ is added to a word already ending in -er; that is, already marked with the sign of the comparative degree. Neth-er-m-ost. Hind-er-m-ost. Utt-er-m-ost. Out-er-m-ost. Upp-er-m-ost. Inn-er-m-ost. * * * * * CHAPTER XII. THE CARDINAL NUMBERS. § 261. Generally speaking, the greater part of the cardinal numbers are undeclined. As far as _number_ goes, this is necessary. _One_ is naturally and exclusively _singular_. _Two_ is naturally _dual_. The rest are naturally and exclusively _plural_. As to the inflection of gender and case, there is no reason why all the numerals should not be as fully inflected as the Latin _unus, una, unum_, _unius_. It is a mere habit of our language that they are not so in English. * * * * * CHAPTER XIII. THE ORDINAL NUMBERS. § 262. By referring to § 259, we see that -m was an early sign of the superlative degree. This bears upon the numerals _seven_, _nine_, and _ten_. These are _cardinal_ numbers. Nevertheless, the present chapter is the proper place for noticing them. There is good reason for believing that the final -n is no part of the original root. Thus,-- a. _Sev-en_ = the Latin _sept-em_, where the -m is equivalent to the -n. But in the Greek [Greek: hepta], and the Scandinavian _syv_, and _sju_, neither -n nor -m occur. b. _Ni-ne_.--This same applies here. The Latin form is _nov-em_; but the Greek and Norse are [Greek: ennea] and _niu_. c. _Ten_.--The older form is _ti-h-un_, in Latin _de-c-em_. The English -n is the Latin -m. Nevertheless, in the Greek and Norse the forms are [Greek: deka] and _tuo_. § 263. What explains this? The following hypothesis. Some of the best German authorities believe, that the -m, expressive of the superlative degree, was also used to denote the _ordinal character_ (_ordinality_) _of the numerals_; so that the -m- in _deci-m-us_, was the -m- in _ulti-m-us_ and _exti-m-us_. This is the first step in the explanation. § 264. The next is, to suppose that certain _cardinal_ numerals have taken and retained the _ordinal_ form; these being the-- _Latin._ _English._ _Greek._ _Norse._ _Sept-em_, _sev-en_, as opposed to the [Greek: hepta] _sjau_. _Nov-em_, _ni-ne_ " " [Greek: ennea] _níu_. _Dec-em_, _te-n_ " " [Greek: deka] _tíu_. I give no opinion as to the accuracy or erroneousness of this view. § 265. _Thir-teen_, &c., is _three_ with _ten_ added, or 3 + 10. § 266. _Thir-ty_, &c., is _three tens_ (_three decades_), or 3 × 10. In Moeso-Gothic we find the -ty in the fuller form _tig_ = [Greek: dek-as] in Greek. * * * * * CHAPTER XIV. THE ARTICLES. § 267. In the generality of grammars the definite article _the_, and the indefinite article _an_, are the very first parts of speech that are considered. This is exceptionable. So far are they from being essential to language, that, in many dialects, they are wholly wanting. In Greek there is no indefinite, in Latin there is neither an indefinite nor a definite article. In the former language they say [Greek: anêr tis] = _a certain man_: in the latter the words _filius patris_ mean equally _the son of the father_, _a son of a father_, _a son of the father_, or _the son of a father_. In Moeso-Gothic and in Old Norse, there is an equal absence of the indefinite article; or, at any rate, if there be one at all, it is a different word from what occurs in English. In these the Greek [Greek: tis] is expressed by the Gothic root _sum_. Now, since it is very evident that, as far as the sense is concerned, the words _some man_, _a certain man_, and _a man_, are much the same, an exception may be taken to the statement that in Greek and Moeso-Gothic there is no indefinite article. It may, in the present state of the argument, be fairly said that the words _sum_ and [Greek: tis] are pronouns with a certain sense, and that _a_ and _an_ are no more; consequently, that in Greek the indefinite article is [Greek: tis], in Moeso-Gothic _sum_, and in English _a_ or _an_. A distinction, however, may be made. In the expression [Greek: anêr tis] (_anær tis_) = _a certain man_, or _a man_, and in the expression _sum mann_, the words _sum_ and [Greek: tis] preserve their natural and original meaning; whilst in _a man_ and _an ox_ the words _a_ and _an_ are used in a secondary sense. These words, as is currently known, are one and the same, the n, in the form _a_, being ejected through a euphonic process. They are, moreover, the same words with the numeral _one_; Anglo-Saxon, _án_; Scotch, _ane_. Now, between the words _a man_ and _one man_, there is a difference in meaning; the first expression being the most indefinite. Hence comes the difference between the English and Moeso-Gothic expressions. In the one the word _sum_ has a natural, in the other, the word _an_ has a secondary power. The same reasoning applies to the word _the_. Compared with _a man_, the words _the man_ are very definite. Compared, however, with the words _that man_, they are the contrary. Now, just as _an_ and _a_ have arisen out of the numeral _one_, so has _the_ arisen out of the demonstrative pronoun _þæt_, or at least from some common root. It will be remembered that in Anglo-Saxon there was a form _þe_, undeclined, and common to all the cases of all the numbers. In no language in its oldest stage is there ever a word giving, in its primary sense, the ideas of _a_ and _the_. As tongues become modern, some noun with a _similar_ sense is used to express them. In the course of time a change of form takes place, corresponding to the change of meaning; e.g., _one_ becomes _an_, and afterwards a. Then it is that articles become looked upon as separate parts of speech, and are dealt with accordingly. No invalidation of this statement is drawn from the Greek language. Although the first page of the etymology gives us [Greek: ho], [Greek: hê], [Greek: to] (_ho, hæ, to_), as the definite articles, the corresponding page in the syntax informs us, that, in the oldest stage of the language, [Greek: ho] (_ho_) = _the_, had the power of [Greek: houtos] (_howtos_) = _this_. The origin of the articles seems uniform. In German _ein_, in Danish _en_, stand to _one_ in the same relation that _an_ does. The French _un_, Italian and Spanish _uno_, are similarly related to _unus_ = _one_. And as, in English, _the_, in German _der_, in Danish _den_, come from the demonstrative pronouns, so, in the classical languages, are the French _le_, the Italian _il_ and _lo_, and the Spanish _el_, derived from the Latin demonstrative _ille_. In his "Outlines of Logic," the present writer has given reasons for considering the word _no_ (as in _no man_) an article. That _the_, in expressions like _all the more_, _all the better_, &c., is no article, has already been shown. * * * * * CHAPTER XV. DIMINUTIVES, AUGMENTATIVES, AND PATRONYMICS. § 268. Compared with the words _lamb_, _man_, and _hill_, the words _lambkin_, _mannikin_, and _hillock_ convey the idea of comparative smallness or diminution. Now, as the word _hillock_ = _a little hill_ differs in _form_ from _hill_, we have in English a series of _diminutive_ forms, or _diminutives_. The English diminutives may be arranged according to a variety of principles. Amongst others: 1. _According to their form._--The word _hillock_ is derived from _hill_, by the _addition_ of a _syllable_. The word _tip_ is derived from _top_, by the _change_ of a _vowel_. 2. _According to their meaning._--In the word _hillock_ there is the simple expression of comparative smallness in size. In the word _doggie_ for _dog_, _lassie_ for _lass_, the addition of the -ie makes the word not so much a diminutive as a term of tenderness or endearment. The idea of smallness, accompanied, perhaps, with that of neatness, generally carries with it the idea of approbation; hence, the word _clean_ in English, means, in German, _little_ = _kleine_. The feeling of protection which is extended to small objects engenders the notion of endearment. § 269. The Greek word [Greek: meiôsis] (_meiôsis_) means diminution; the Greek word [Greek: hupokorisma] (_hypokorisma_) means an endearing expression. Hence we get names for the two kinds of diminutives; viz., the term _meiotic_ for the true diminutives, and the term _hypocoristic_ for the diminutives of endearment. 3. _According to their historical origin._--The syllable -ock, as in _hillock_, is of Anglo-Saxon and Gothic origin. The -et, as in _lancet_, is of French and classical origin. 4. _According as they affect proper names, or common names._--_Hawkin_, _Perkin_, _Wilkin_, &c. In these words we have the diminutives of _Hal_, _Peter_, _Will_, &c. § 270. The diminutive forms of Gothic origin are the first to be considered. 1. _Those formed by a change of vowel._--_Tip_, from _top_. The relation of the feminine to the masculine is allied to the ideas conveyed by many diminutives. Hence in the word _kit_, from _cat_, it is doubtful whether there be meant a female cat or a little cat. _Kid_ is a diminutive form of _goat_. 2. _Those formed by the addition of a letter or letters._--Of the diminutive characteristics thus formed the commonest, beginning from the simpler forms, are Ie.--Almost peculiar to the Lowland Scotch; as _daddie_, _lassie_, _minnie_, _wifie_, _mousie_, _doggie_, _boatie_, &c. Ock.--_Bullock_, _hillock_. Kin.--_Lambkin_, _mannikin_, _ladikin_, &c. As is seen above, common in proper names. En.--_Chicken_, _kitten_, from _cock_, _cat_. The notion of diminution, if indeed that be the notion originally conveyed, lies not in the -en, but in the vowel. In the word _chicken_, from _cock_, observe the effect of the small vowel on the c. The consideration of words like _duckling_, and _gosling_, is purposely deferred. The chief diminutive of classical origin is-- _Et_, as in _trumpet_, _lancet_, _pocket_; the word _pock_, as in _meal-pock_ = _a meal-bag_, being found in the Scottish. From the French -ette, as in _caissette_, _poulette_. The forms -rel, as in _cockerel_, _pickerel_, and -let, as in _streamlet_, require a separate consideration. The first has nothing to do with the Italian forms _acquerella_ and _coserella_--themselves, perhaps, of Gothic, rather than of classical origin. In the Old High-German there are a multitude of diminutive forms in -el; as _ouga_ = _an eye_, _ougili_ = _a little eye_; _lied_ = _a song_, _liedel_ = _a little song_. This indicates the nature of words like _cockerel_. Even in English the diminutive power of -el can be traced in the following words:-- _Soare_ = a deer in its third year. _Sor-rel_--a deer in its second year.--See "Love's Labour Lost," with the note. _Tiercel_ = a small sort of hawk, one-third less (_tierce_) than the common kind. _Kantle_ = _small corner_, from _cant_ = _a corner_.--"Henry IV." _Hurdle_; in Dutch _horde_; German, _hurde_. _Hording_, without the -l, is used in an allied sense by builders in English. In the words in point we must assume an earlier form, _cocker_ and _piker_, to which the diminutive form -el is affixed. If this be true, we have, in English, representatives of the diminutive form -el so common in the High Germanic dialects. _Wolfer_ = _a wolf_, _hunker_ = _a haunch_, _flitcher_ = _a flitch_, _teamer_ = _a team_, _fresher_ = _a frog_,--these are north country forms of the present English. The termination -let, as in _streamlet_, seems to be double, and to consist of the Gothic diminutive -l, and the French diminutive -t. § 271. _Augmentatives._--Compared with _capello_ = _a hat_, the Italian word _capellone_ = _a great hat_, is an augmentative. The augmentative forms, pre-eminently common in the Italian language, often carry with them a depreciating sense. The termination -rd (in Old High German, -hart), as in _drunkard_, _braggart_, _laggard_, _stinkard_, carries with it this idea of depreciation. In _buzzard_, and _reynard_, the name of the fox, it is simply augmentative. In _wizard_, from _witch_, it has the power of a masculine form. The termination -rd, taken from the Gothic, appears in the modern languages of classical origin: French, _vieillard_; Spanish, _codardo_. From these we get, at secondhand, the word _coward_. The word _sweetheart_ is a derived word of this sort, rather than a compound word; since in Old High German and Middle High German, we have the corresponding form _liebhart_. Now the form for _heart_ is in German not _hart_, but _herz_. Words like _braggadocio_, _trombone_, _balloon_, being words of foreign origin, prove nothing as to the further existence of augmentative forms in English. § 272.--_Patronymics._--In the Greek language the notion of _lineal descent_, in other words, the relation of the son to the father, is expressed by a particular termination; as [Greek: Pêleus] (_Peleus_), [Greek: Pêleidês] (_Peleidæs_), the son of Peleus. It is very evident that this mode of expression is very different from either the English form _Johnson_ = _the son of John_, or the Gaelic _MacDonald_ = _the son of Donald_. In these last-named words, the words _son_ and _Mac_ mean the same thing; so that _Johnson_ and _MacDonald_ are not _derived_ but _compound_ words. This Greek way of expressing descent is peculiar, and the words wherein it occurs are classed together by the peculiar name _patronymic_; from _patær_ = _a father_, and _onoma_ = _a name_. Is there anything in English corresponding to the Greek patronymics? Not in the _present_ English? There was, however, in the Anglo-Saxon. In the Anglo-Saxon, the termination -ing is as truly patronymic as [Greek: -idês] in Greek. In the Bible-translation the _son of Elisha_ is called _Elising_. In the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle occur such genealogies as the following:--_Ida wæs Eopping_, _Eoppa Esing_, _Esa Inging_, _Inga Angenviting_, _Angenvit Alocing_, _Aloc Beonocing_, _Beonoc Branding_, _Brand Bældæging_, _Bældæg Vódening_, _Vóden Friðowulfing_, _Friðowulf Finning_, _Finn Godwulfing_, _Godwulf Geating_ = Ida was the son of Eoppa, Eoppa of Esa, Esa of Inga, Inga of Angenvit, Angenvit of Aloc, Aloc of Beonoc, Beonoc of Brand, Brand of Bældæg, Bældæg of Woden, Woden of Friðowulf, Friðowulf of Finn, Finn of Godwulf, Godwulf of Geat.--In Greek, [Greek: Ida ên Eoppeidês, Eoppa Êseidês, Êsa Ingeidês, Inga Angenphiteidês], &c. In the plural number these forms denote the _race of_; as _Scyldingas_ = _the Scyldings_, or the race of _Scyld_, &c. Edgar Atheling means Edgar of the race of the nobles. * * * * * CHAPTER XVI. GENTILE FORMS. § 273. The only word in the present English that requires explanation is the name of the principality _Wales_. 1. The form is _plural_, however much the meaning may be _singular_; so that the -s in _Wale-s_ is the -s in _fathers_, &c. 2. It has grown out of the Anglo-Saxon from _wealhas_ = _foreigners_, from _wealh_ = _a foreigner_, the name by which the Welsh are spoken of by the Germans of England, just as the Italians are called Welsh by the Germans of Germany; and just as _wal-nuts_ = _foreign nuts_, or _nuces Galliæ_. _Welsh_ = _weall-isc_ = _foreign_, and is a derived adjective. 3. The transfer of the name of the _people_ inhabiting a certain country to the _country_ so inhabited, was one of the commonest processes in both Anglo-Saxon and Old English. * * * * * CHAPTER XVII. ON THE CONNEXION BETWEEN THE NOUN AND VERB, AND ON THE INFLECTION OF THE INFINITIVE MOOD. § 274. In order to understand clearly the use of the so-called infinitive mood in English, it is necessary to bear in mind two facts, one a matter of _logic_, the other a matter of _history_. In the way of _logic_, the difference between a noun and a verb is less marked than it is in the way of _grammar_. Grammatically, the contrast is considerable. The inflection of nouns expresses the ideas of sex as denoted by gender, and of relation in place as denoted by cases. That of verbs rarely expresses sex, and never relations in place. On the other hand, however, it expresses what no noun ever does or can express; e.g., the relation of the agency to the individual speaking, by means of _person_; the time in which acts take place, by means of _tense_; and the conditions of their occurrence, by means of _mood_. The idea of _number_ is the only one that, on a superficial view, is common to these two important parts of speech. § 275. Logically, however, the contrast is inconsiderable. A noun denotes an object of which either the senses or the intellect can take cognizance, and a verb does no more. _To move_ = _motion_, _to rise_ = _rising_, _to err_ = _error_, _to forgive_ = _forgiveness_. The only difference between the two parts of speech is this, that, whereas a noun may express any object whatever, verbs can only express those objects which consist in an action. And it is this superadded idea of action that superadds to the verb the phenomena of tense, mood, person, and voice; in other words, the phenomena of conjugation. § 276. A noun is a word capable of _declension_ only. A verb is a word capable of declension and _conjugation_ also. The fact of verbs being declined as well as conjugated must be remembered. _The participle has the declension of a noun adjective, the infinitive mood the declension of a noun substantive. Gerunds and supines, in languages where they occur, are only names for certain cases of the verb._ § 277. Although in all languages the verb is equally capable of declension, it is not equally declined. The Greeks, for instance, used forms like [Greek: to phthonein] = _invidia_. [Greek: tou phthonein] = _invidiæ_. [Greek: en tôi phthonein] = _in invidia_. § 278. Returning, however, to the illustration of the substantival character of the so-called infinitive mood, we may easily see-- [alpha]. That the name of any action may be used without any mention of the agent. Thus, we may speak of the simple fact of _walking_ or _moving_, independently of any specification of the _walker_ or _mover_. [beta]. That, when actions are spoken of thus indefinitely, the idea of either person or number has no place in the conception; from which it follows that the so-called infinitive mood must be at once impersonal, and without the distinction of singular, dual, and plural. [gamma]. That, nevertheless, the ideas of time and relation in space _have_ place in the conception. We can think of a person being _in the act of striking a blow_, of his _having been in the act of striking a blow_, or of his _being about to be in the act of striking a blow_. We can also think of a person being _in the act of doing a good action_, or of his being _from the act of doing a good action_. § 279. This has been written to show that verbs of languages in general are as naturally declinable as nouns. What follows will show that the verbs of the Gothic languages in particular were actually declined, and that fragments of this declension remain in the present English. The inflection of the verb in its impersonal (or infinitive state) consisted, in its fullest form, of three cases, a nominative (or accusative), a dative, and a genitive. The genitive is put last, because its occurrence in the Gothic languages is the least constant. In Anglo-Saxon the nominative (or accusative) ended in -an, with a single n. Lufian = _to love_ = _amare_. Bærnan = _to burn_ = _urere_. Syllan = _to give_ = _dare_. In Anglo-Saxon the dative of the infinitive verb ended in -nne, and was preceded by the preposition _to_. To lufienne = _ad amandum_. To bærnenne = _ad urendum_. To syllanne = _ad dandum_. The genitive, ending in -es, occurs only in Old High German and Modern High German, _plâsannes_, _weinnenes_. § 280. With these preliminaries we can take a clear view of the English infinitives. They exist under two forms, and are referable to a double origin. 1. The _independent_ form.--This is used after the words _can_, _may_, _shall_, _will_, and some others, as, _I can speak_, _I may go_, _I shall come_, _I will move_. Here there is no preposition, and the origin of the infinitive is from the form in -an. 2. The _prepositional_ form.--This is used after the majority of English verbs, as, _I wish to speak_, _I mean to go_, _I intend to come_, _I determine to move_. Here we have the preposition _to_ and the origin of the infinitive is from the form -nne. § 281. Expressions like _to err_ = _error_, _to forgive_ = _forgiveness_, in lines like "To err is human, to forgive divine," are very remarkable. They exhibit the phenomena of a nominative case having grown not only out of a dative but out of a dative _plus_ its governing preposition. * * * * * CHAPTER XVIII. ON DERIVED VERBS. § 282. Of the divisions of verbs into active and passive, transitive and intransitive, unless there be an accompanying change of _form_, etymology takes no cognisance. The forces of the auxiliary verbs, and the tenses to which they are equivalent, are also points of syntax rather than of etymology. Four classes, however, of _derived_ verbs, as opposed to _simple_, especially deserve notice. I. Those ending in -en; as _soften_, _whiten_, _strengthen_, &c. Here the -en is a derivational affix; and not a representative of the Anglo-Saxon infinitive form -an (as _lufian_, _bærnan_ = _to love_, _to burn_), and the Old English -en (as _tellen_, _loven_). II. Transitive verbs derived from intransitives by a change of the vowel of the root. _Primitive Intransitive Form._ _Derived Transitive Form._ Rise Raise. Lie Lay. Sit Set. Fall Fell. Drink Drench. In Anglo-Saxon these words were more numerous than they are at present. _Intrans. Infinitive._ _Trans. Infinitive._ Yrnan, _to run_ Ærnan, _to make to run_. Byrnan, _to burn_ Bærnan, _to make to burn_. Drincan, _to drink_ Drencan, _to drench_. Sincan, _to sink_ Sencan, _to make to sink_. Liegan, _to lie_ Lecgan, _to lay_. Sittan, _to sit_ Settan, _to set_. Drífan, _to drift_ Dræfan, _to drive_. Fëallan, _to fall_ Fyllan, _to fell_. Wëallan, _to boil_ Wyllan, _to make to boil_. Flëogan, _to fly_ A-fligan, _to put to flight_. Bëogan, _to bow_ Bígan, _to bend_. Faran, _to go_ Feran, _to convey_. Wacan, _to wake_ Weccan, _to waken_. All these intransitives form their præterite by a change of vowel; as _sink_, _sank_; all the transitives by the addition of d or t, as _sell_, _sell'd_. III. Verbs derived from nouns by a change of accent; as _to survéy_, from a _súrvey_. _Nouns._ _Verbs._ | _Nouns._ _Verbs._ | Ábsent absént. | Éxtract extráct. Ábstract abstráct. | Férment fermént. Áccent accént. | Fréquent frequént. Áffix affíx. | Ímport impórt. Aúgment augmént. | Íncense incénse. Cólleague colléague. | Ínsult insúlt. Cómpact compáct. | Óbject objéct. Cómpound compóund. | Pérfume perfúme. Cómpress compréss. | Pérmit permít. Cóncert concért. | Préfix prefíx. Cóncrete concréte. | Prémise premíse. Cónduct condúct. | Présage preságe. Cónfine confíne. | Présent presént. Cónflict conflíct. | Próduce prodúce. Cónserve consérve. | Próject projéct. Cónsort consórt. | Prótest protést. Cóntract contráct. | Rébel rebél. Cóntrast contrást. | Récord recórd. Cónverse convérse. | Réfuse refúse. Cónvert convért. | Súbject subjéct. Déscant descánt. | Súrvey survéy. Désert desért. | Tórment tormént. Dígest digést. | Tránsfer transfér. Éssay essáy. | Tránsport transpórt. Walker attributes the change of accent to the influence of the participial termination -ing. All words thus affected are of foreign origin. IV. Verbs formed from nouns by changing a final _sharp_ consonant into its corresponding _flat_ one; as, _The_ use _to_ use, _pronounced_ uze. _The_ breath _to_ breathe -- breadhe. _The_ cloth _to_ clothe -- clodhe. * * * * * CHAPTER XIX. ON THE PERSONS. § 283. Compared with the Latin, the Greek, the Moeso-Gothic, and almost all the ancient languages, there is, in English, in respect to the persons of the verbs, but a very slight amount of inflection. This may be seen by comparing the English word _call_ with the Latin _voco_. _Sing._ _Plur._ | _Sing._ _Plur._ 1. Voc-o Voc-amus. | Call Call. 2. Voc-as Voc-atis. | Call-est Call. 3. Voc-at Voc-ant. | [52]Call-eth Call. Here the Latins have different forms for each different person, whilst the English have forms for two only; and even of these one (_callest_) is becoming obsolete. With the forms voc-o, voc-amus, voc-atis, voc-ant, there is, in the current English, nothing correspondent. In the word _am_, as compared with _are_ and _art_, we find a sign of the first person singular. In the old forms _tellen_, _weren_, &c., we have a sign of the plural number. § 284. In the Modern English, the Old English, and the Anglo-Saxon, the peculiarities of our personal inflections are very great. This may be seen from the following tables of comparison:-- _Present Tense, Indicative Mood._ _Moeso-Gothic._ _1st person._ _2nd person._ _3rd person._ _Singular._ Sôkja Sôkeis Sôkeiþ--_seek_. _Plural._ Sôkjam Sôkeiþ Sokjand. _Old High German._ _Singular._ Prennu Prennîs Prennit--_burn_. _Plural._ Prennames Prennat Prennant. _Icelandic._ _Singular._ Kalla Kallar Kallar--_call_. _Plural._ Kôllum Kalliþ Kalla. _Old Saxon._ _Singular._ Sôkju Sôkîs Sôkîd--_seek_. _Plural._ Sôkjad Sôkjad Sôkjad. _Anglo-Saxon._ _Singular._ Lufige Lufast Lufað. _Plural._ Lufiað Lufiað Lufiað. _Old English._ _Singular._ Love Lovest Loveth. _Plural._ Loven Loven Loven. _Modern English._ _Singular._ Love Lovest Loveth (or Loves). _Plural._ Love Love Love. § 285. Herein remark; 1. the Anglo-Saxon addition of t in the second person singular; 2. the identity in form of the three persons of the plural number; 3. the change of -að into -en in the Old English plural; 4. the total absence of plural forms in the Modern English; 5. the change of the th into s, in _loveth_ and _loves_. These are points bearing especially upon the history of the English persons. The following points indicate a more general question: 1. The full form _prennames_ in the newer Old High German, as compared with _sôkjam_ in the _old_ Moeso-Gothic. 2. The appearance of the r in Icelandic. 3. The difference between the Old Saxon and the Anglo-Saxon in the second person singular; the final t being absent in Old Saxon. § 286. _The person in -t._--The forms _art_, _wast_, _wert_, _shalt_, _wilt_, or _ar-t_, _was-t_, _wer-t_, _shal-t_, _wil-t_, are remarkable. Here the second person singular ends, not in -st, but in t. The reason for this is to be sought in the Moeso-Gothic and the Icelandic. In those languages the form of the person changes with the tense, and the second singular of the præterite tense of one conjugation is, not -s, but -t; as Moeso-Gothic, _svôr_ = _I swore_, _svôrt_ = _thou swarest_, _gráip_ = _I griped_, _gráipt_ = _thou gripedst_; Icelandic, _brannt_ = _thou burnest_, _gaft_ = _thou gavest_. In the same languages ten verbs are conjugated like præterites. Of these, in each language, _skal_ is one. _Moeso-Gothic._ _Singular._ _Dual._ _Plural._ 1. Skal Skulu Skulum. 2. Skalt Skuluts Skuluþ. 3. Skall Skuluts Skulun. _Icelandic._ _Singular._ _Plural._ 1. Skall Skulum. 2. Skalt Skuluð. 3. Skal Skulu. § 287. _Thou spakest_, _thou brakest_, _thou sungest_.[53]-- In these forms there is a slight though natural anomaly. They belong to the class of verbs which form their præterite by changing the vowel of the present; as _sing_, _sang_, &c. Now, all words of this sort in Anglo-Saxon formed their second singular præterite, not in -st, but in -e; as _þú funde_ = _thou foundest_, _þú sunge_ = _thou sungest_. The English termination is derived from the present. Observe that this applies only to the præterites formed by changing the vowel. _Thou loved'st_ is Anglo-Saxon as well as English, viz., _þú lufodest_. § 288. In the northern dialects of the Anglo-Saxon the -ð of plurals like _lufiað_ = _we love_ becomes -s. In the Scottish this change was still more prevalent: The Scottes come that to this day _Havys_ and Scotland haldyn ay.--Wintoun, 11, 9, 73. James I. of England ends nearly all his plurals in -s. * * * * * CHAPTER XX. ON THE NUMBERS OF VERBS. § 289. As compared with the present plural forms, _we love_, _ye love_, _they love_, the Anglo-Saxons had the truly plural forms, _we lufiað_, _ge lufiað_, _hi lufiað_. The Old English also had a true plural inflection _we loven_, _ye loven_, _they loven_. The present English wants both the form in -en, and the form in -að. 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. § 290. In the forms _luf-iað_, and _lov-en_, the change from singular to plural is made by adding a syllable; but there is no reason against the inflection running thus--_I love_, _thou lovest_, _he loves_; _we lave_, _ye lave_, _they lave_; in other words, there is no reason against the _vowel_ of the root being changed, just as is the case with the form _speak, spoke_; _fall, fell_. Now, in Anglo-Saxon, with a great number of verbs such a plural inflection not only actually takes place, but takes place most regularly. It takes place, however, in the past tense only. And this is the case in all the Gothic languages as well as in Anglo-Saxon. Amongst the rest, in-- _Moeso-Gothic._ Skáin, _I shone_; skinum, _we shone_. Smáit, _I smote_; smitum, _we smote_. Káus, _I chose_; kusum, _we chose_. Láug, _I lied_; lugum, _we lied_. Gab, _I gave_; gêbum, _we gave_. At, _I ete_; étum, _we ete_. Stal, _I stole_; stélum, _we stole_. Qvam, _I came_; qyêmum, _we came_. _Anglo-Saxon._ Arn, _I ran_; urnon, _we run_. Ongan, _I began_; ongunnon, _we begun_. Span, _I span_; spunnon, _we spun_. Sang, _I sang_; sungon, _we sung_. Swang, _I swang_; swangon, _we swung_. Dranc, _I drank_; druncon, _we drunk_. Sanc, _I sank_; suncon, _we sunk_. Sprang, _I sprang_; sprungon, _we sprung_. Swam, _I swam_; swummon, _we swum_. Rang, _I rang_; rungon, _we rung_. From these examples the reader has himself drawn his inference; viz. that words like _Began_, _begun_. _Ran_, _run_. _Span_, _spun_. _Sang_, _sung_. _Swang_, _swung_. _Sprang_, _sprung_. _Sank_, _sunk_. _Swam_, _swum_. _Rang_, _rung_. _Bat_, _bit_. _Smote_, _smit_. _Drank_, _drunk_, &c., generally called double forms of the past tense, were originally _different numbers of the same tense_, the forms in a, as _swam_, being singular, and the forms in u, as _swum_, plural. * * * * * CHAPTER XXI. ON MOODS. § 291. The Anglo-Saxon infinitive has already been considered. Between the second plural imperative, and the second plural indicative, _speak ye_, and _ye speak_, there is no difference of form. Between the second singular imperative _speak_, and the second singular indicative, _speakest_, there is a difference in form. Still, as the imperative form _speak_ is distinguished from the indicative form _speakest_ by the _negation_ of a character rather than by the possession of one, it cannot be said that there is in English any imperative mood. § 292. _If he speak_, as opposed to _if he speaks_, is characterized by a negative sign only, and consequently is no true example of a subjunctive. _Be_, as opposed to _am_, in the sentence _if it be so_, is a fresh word used in a limited sense, and consequently no true example of a subjunctive. It is a different word altogether, and is only the subjunctive of _am_, in the way _puss_ is the vocative of _cat_. The only true subjunctive inflection in the English language is that of _were_ and _wert_, as opposed to the indicative forms _was_ and _wast_. _Indicative._ | _Subjunctive._ _Singular._ | _Singular._ _Plural._ 1. I was. | If I were. If we were. 2. Thou wast. | If thou wert. If ye were. 3. He was. | If he were. If they were. * * * * * CHAPTER XXII. ON TENSES IN GENERAL. § 293. The nature of tenses in general is best exhibited by reference to the Greek; since in that language they are more numerous, and more strongly marked than elsewhere. _I strike_, _I struck_.--Of these words, the first implies an action taking place at the time of speaking, the second marks an action that has already taken place. These two notions of present and of past time, being expressed by a change of form, are true tenses. If there were no change of form, there would be no change of tense. They are the only true tenses in our language. In _I was beating_, _I have beaten_, _I had beaten_, and _I shall beat_, a difference of time is expressed; but as it is expressed by _a combination of words_, and not _by a change of form_, no true tenses are constituted. § 294. In Greek the case is different. [Greek: Tuptô] (typtô) = _I beat_; [Greek: etupton] (etypton) = _I was beating_; [Greek: tupsô] (typsô) = _I shall beat_; [Greek: etupsa] (etypsa) = _I beat_; [Greek: tetupha] (tetyfa) = _I have beaten_; [Greek: etetuphein] (etetyfein) = _I had beaten_. In these words we have, of the same mood, the same voice, and the same conjugation, six different tenses; whereas, in English, there are but two. The forms [Greek: tetupha] and [Greek: etupsa] are so strongly marked, that we recognise them wheresoever they occur. The first is formed by a reduplication of the initial [tau], and, consequently, may be called the reduplicate form. As a tense it is called the perfect. In the form [Greek: etupsa] an [epsilon] is prefixed, and an [sigma] is added. In the allied language of Italy the [epsilon] disappears, whilst the [sigma] (s) remains. [Greek: Etupsa] is said to be an aorist tense. _Scripsi_ is to _scribo_ as [Greek: etupsa] is to [Greek: tuptô]. § 295. Now in the Latin language a confusion takes place between these two tenses. Both forms exist. They are used, however, indiscriminately. The aorist form has, besides its own, the sense of the perfect. The perfect has, besides its own, the sense of the aorist. In the following pair of quotations, _vixi_, the aorist form, is translated _I have lived_, while _tetigit_, the perfect form, is translated _he touched_. _Vixi_, et quem dederat cursum Fortuna peregi; Et nunc magna mei sub terras ibis imago.--_Æn._ iv. Ut primum alatis _tetigit_ magalia plantis.--_Æn._ iv. § 296. When a difference of form has ceased to express a difference of meaning, it has become superfluous. This is the case with the two forms in question. One of them may be dispensed with; and the consequence is, that, although in the Latin language both the perfect and the aorist forms are found, they are, with few exceptions, never found in the same word. Wherever there is the perfect, the aorist is wanting, and _vice versâ_. The two ideas _I have struck_ and _I struck_ are merged into the notion of past time in general, and are expressed by one of two forms, sometimes by that of the Greek perfect, and sometimes by that of the Greek aorist. On account of this the grammarians have cut down the number of Latin tenses to _five_; forms like _cucurri_ and _vixi_ being dealt with as one and the same tense. The true view is, that in _curro_ the aorist form is replaced by the perfect, and in _vixi_ the perfect form is replaced by the aorist. § 297. In the _present_ English there is no undoubted perfect or reduplicate form. The form _moved_ corresponds in meaning not with [Greek: tetupha] and _momordi_, but with [Greek: etupsa] and _vixi_. Its sense is that of [Greek: etupsa], and not that of [Greek: tetupha]. The notion given by [Greek: tetupha] we express by the circumlocution _I have beaten_. We have no such form as _bebeat_ or _memove_. In the Moeso-Gothic, however, there was a true reduplicate form; in other words, a perfect tense as well as an aorist. It is by the possession of this form that the verbs of the first six conjugations are characterized. _Moeso-Gothic._ _Moeso-Gothic._ _English._ _English._ 1st. Falþa, _I fold_ Fáifalþ, _I have folded_, or _I folded_. Halda, _I feed_ Háihald, _I have fed_, or _I fed_. Haha, _I hang_ Háihah, _I have hanged_, or _I hanged_. 2nd. Háita, _I call_ Háiháit, _I have called_, or _I called_. Láika, _I play_ Láiláik, _I have played_, or _I played_. 3rd. Hláupa, _I run_ Hláiláup _I have run_, or _I ran_. 4th. Slêpa, _I sleep_ Sáizlêp, _I have slept_, or _I slept_. 5th. Láia, _I laugh_ Láilô, _I have laughed_, or _I laught_. Sáija, _I sow_ Sáisô, _I have sown_, or _I sowed_. 6th. Grêta, _I weep_ Gáigrôt, _I have wept_, or _I wept_. Téka, _I touch_ Táitôk, _I have touched_, or _I touched_. In Moeso-Gothic, as in Latin, the perfect forms have, besides their own, an aorist sense, and _vice versâ_. In Moeso-Gothic, as in Latin, few (if any) words are found in both forms. In Moeso-Gothic, as in Latin, the two forms are dealt with as a single tense; _láilô_ being called the præterite of _láia_, and _svôr_ the præterite of _svara_. The true view, however, is that in Moeso-Gothic, as in Latin, there are two past tenses, each having a certain latitude of meaning, and each, in certain words, replacing the other. The reduplicate form, in other words, the perfect tense, is current in none of the Gothic languages except the Moeso-Gothic. A trace of it is said to be found in the Anglo-Saxon of the seventh century in the word _heht_, which is considered to be _hê-ht_, the Moeso-Gothic _háiháit_, _vocavi_. _Did_ from _do_ is also considered to be a reduplicate form. § 298. In the English language the tense corresponding with the Greek aorist and the Latin forms like _vixi_, is formed after two modes; 1, as in _fell_, _sang_, and _took_, from _fall_, _sing_, and _take_, by changing the vowel of the present: 2, as in _moved_ and _wept_, from _move_ and _weep_, by the addition of -d or -t; the -d or -t not being found in the original word, but being a fresh element added to it. In forms, on the contrary, like _sang_ and _fell_, no addition being made, no new element appears. The vowel, indeed, is changed, but nothing is added. Verbs, then, of the first sort, may be said to form their præterites out of themselves; whilst verbs of the second sort require something from without. To speak in a metaphor, words like _sang_ and _fell_ are comparatively independent. Be this as it may, the German grammarians call the tenses formed by a change of vowel the _strong_ tenses, the _strong_ verbs, the _strong_ conjugation, or the _strong_ order; and those formed by the addition of d or t, the _weak_ tenses, the _weak_ verbs, the _weak_ conjugation, or the _weak_ order. _Bound_, _spoke_, _gave_, _lay_, &c., are _strong_; _moved_, _favoured_, _instructed_, &c., are _weak_. * * * * * CHAPTER XXIII. THE STRONG TENSES. § 299. The strong præterites are formed from the present by changing the vowel, as _sing_, _sang_; _speak_, _spoke_. In Anglo-Saxon, several præterites change, in their plural, the vowel of their singular; as Ic sang, _I sang_. | We sungon, _we sung_. Þu sunge, _thou sungest_. | Ge sungon, _ye sung_. He sang, _he sang_. | Hi sungon, _they sung_. The bearing of this fact upon the præterites has already been indicated. In a great number of words we have a double form, as _ran_ and _run_, _sang_ and _sung_, _drank_ and _drunk_, &c. One of these forms is derived from the singular, and the other from the plural. In cases where but one form is preserved, that form is not necessarily the singular; indeed, it is often the plural;--e.g., Ic fand, _I found_, we fundon, _we found_, are the Anglo-Saxon forms. Now the present word _found_ comes, not from the singular _fand_, but from the plural _fundon_; although in the Lowland Scotch dialect and in the old writers, the _singular_ form occurs; Donald Caird finds orra things, Where Allan Gregor _fand_ the tings.--SCOTT. § 300. The verbs wherein the double form of the present præterite is thus explained, fall into two classes. 1. In the first class, the Anglo-Saxon forms were á in the singular, and i in the plural; as-- _Sing._ | _Plur._ | Sceán | Scinon (_we shone_). Arás | Arison (_we arose_). Smát | Smiton (_we smote_). This accounts for-- _Present._ _Præt. from Sing. form._ _Præt. from Plur. form._ Rise Rose [54]Ris. Smite Smote Smit. Ride Rode [54]Rid. Stride Strode Strid. Slide [54]Slode Slid. Chide [54]Chode Chid. Drive Drove [54]Driv. Thrive Throve Thriv. Write Wrote Writ. Slit [54]Slat Slit. Bite [54]Bat Bit. 2. In the second class, the Anglo-Saxon forms were a in the singular, and u in the plural, as-- _Sing._ | _Plural._ | Band | Bundon (_we bound_). Fand | Fundon (_we found_). Grand | Grundon (_we ground_). Wand | Wundon (_we wound_). This accounts for-- _Present._ _Præt from Sing. form._ _Præt. from Pl. form._ Swim Swam Swum. Begin Began Begun. Spin [55]Span Spun. Win [55]Wan [56]Won. Sing Sang Sung. Swing [55]Swang Swung. Spring Sprang Sprung. Sting [55]Stang Stung. Ring Rang Rung. Wring [55]Wrang Wrung. Fling Flang Flung. [55]Hing Hang Hung. String [55]Strang Strung. Sink Sank Sunk. Drink Drank Drunk. Shrink Shrank Shrunk. Stink [55]Stank Stunk. Melt [55]Molt -- Help [55]Holp -- Delve [55]Dolv -- Stick [55]Stack Stuck. Run Ran Run. Burst Brast Burst. Bind Band Bound. Find [55]Fand Found. § 301. The following double præterites are differently explained. The primary one _often_ (but not _always_) is from the Anglo-Saxon _participle_, the secondary from the Anglo-Saxon _præterite_. _Present._ _Primary Præterite._ _Secondary Præterite._ Cleave Clove [55]Clave. Steal Stole [55]Stale. Speak Spoke Spake. Swear Swore Sware. Bear Bore Bare. Tear Tore [55]Tare. Wear Wore [55]Ware. Break Broke Brake. Get Got [55]Gat. Tread Trod Trad. Bid Bade Bid. Eat Ate Ete. § 302. The following verbs have only a single form for the præterite,-- _Present._ _Præterite._ | _Present._ _Præterite._ | Fall Fell. | Forsake Forsook. Befall Befell. | Eat Ate. Hold Held. | Give Gave. Draw Drew. | Wake Woke. Slay Slew. | Grave Grove. Fly Flew. | Shape Shope. Blow Blew. | Strike Struck. Crow Crew. | Shine Shone. Know Knew. | Abide Abode. Grow Grew. | Strive Strove. Throw Threw. | Climb Clomb. Let Let. | Hide Hid. Beat Beat. | Dig Dug. Come Came. | Cling Clung. Heave Hove. | Swell Swoll. Weave Wove. | Grind Ground. Freeze Froze. | Wind Wound. Shear Shore. | Choose Chose. ---- Quoth. | Stand Stood. Seethe Sod. | Lie Lay. Shake Shook. | See Saw. Take Took. | § 303. An arrangement of the preceding verbs into classes, according to the change of vowel, is by no means difficult, even in the present stage of the English language. In the Anglo-Saxon, it was easier still. It is also easier in the provincial dialects, than in the literary English. Thus, when _Break_ is pronounced _Breek_, _Bear_ -- _Beer_, _Tear_ -- _Teer_, _Swear_ -- _Sweer_, _Wear_ -- _Weer_, as they actually are by many speakers, they come in the same class with,-- _Speak_ pronounced _Speek_, _Cleave_ -- _Cleeve_, and form their præterite by means of a similar change, i.e., by changing the sound of the ee in _feet_ (spelt ea) into that of the a in _fate_; viewed thus, the irregularity is less than it appears to be at first sight. Again, _tread_ is pronounced _tredd_, but many provincial speakers say _treed_, and so said the Anglo-Saxons, whose form was _ic trede_ = _I tread_. Their præterite was _træd_. This again subtracts from the apparent irregularity. Instances of this kind may be multiplied; the whole question, however, of the conjugation of the _strong verbs_ is best considered after the perusal of the next chapter. * * * * * CHAPTER XXIV. THE WEAK TENSES. § 304. The præterite 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 præterite tense, is true only in regard to the written language. In _stabbed_, _moved_, _bragged_, _whizzed_, _judged_, _filled_, _slurred_, _slammed_, _shunned_, _barred_, _strewed_, the e is a point of spelling only. In _language_, except in declamation, there is no second vowel sound. The -d comes in immediate contact with the final letter of the original word, and the number of syllables remains the same as it was before. We say _stabd_, _môved_, _bragd_, &c. § 305. When, however, the original word ends in -d or -t, as _slight_ or _brand_, then, and then only is there the real addition of the syllable -ed; as in _slighted_, _branded_. This is necessary, since the combinations _slightt_ and _brandd_ are unpronounceable. Whether the addition be -d or -t depends upon the flatness or sharpness of the preceding letter. After b, v, th (as in _clothe_), g, or z, the addition is -d. This is a matter of necessity. We say _stabd_, _môvd_, _clôthd_, _braggd_, _whizzd_, because _stabt_, _môvt_, _clotht_, _braggt_, _whizzt_, are unpronounceable. After l, m, n, r, w, y, or a vowel, the addition is also -d. This is the _habit_ of the English language. _Filt_, _slurt_, _strayt_, &c., are as pronounceable as _filld_, _slurrd_, _strayd_, &c. It is the habit, however, of the English language to prefer the latter forms. All this, as the reader has probably observed, is merely the reasoning concerning the s, in words like _father's_, &c., applied to another letter and to another part of speech. § 306. The verbs of the weak conjugation fall into three classes. I. In the first there is the simple addition of -d, -t, or -ed. Serve, served. | Dip, dipped (_dipt_). Cry, cried. | Slip, slipped (_slipt_). Betray, betrayed. | Step, stepped (_stept_). Expell, expelled. | Look, looked (_lookt_). Accuse, accused. | Pluck, plucked (_pluckt_). Instruct, instructed. | Toss, tossed (_tost_). Invite, invited. | Push, pushed (_pusht_). Waste, wasted. | Confess, confessed (_confest_). To this class belong the greater part of the weak verbs and all verbs of foreign origin. § 307. II. In the second class, besides the addition of -t or -d, the vowel is _shortened_, _Present._ _Præterite._ Creep Crept. Keep Kept. Sleep Slept. Sweep Swept. Weep Wept. Lose Lost. Mean [57]Meant. Here the final consonant is -t. _Present_ _Præterite_ Flee Fled. Hear [58]Heard. Shoe Shod. Say [59]Said. Here the final consonant is -d. § 308. III. In the second class the vowel of the present tense was _shortened_ in the præterite. In the third class it is _changed_. Tell, told. Will, would. Sell, sold. Shall, should. To this class belong the remarkable præterites of the verbs _seek_, _beseech_, _catch_, _teach_, _bring_, _think_, and _buy_, viz., _sought_, _besought_, _caught_, _taught_, _brought_, _thought_, and _bought_. In all these, the final consonant is either g or k, or else a sound allied to those mutes. When the tendency of these sounds to become h and y, as well as to undergo farther changes, is remembered, the forms in point cease to seem anomalous. In _wrought_, from _work_, there is a transposition. In _laid_ and _said_ the present forms make a show of regularity which they have not. The true original forms should be _legde_ and _sægde_, the infinitives being _lecgan_, _secgan_. In these words the i represents the semivowel y, into which the original g was changed. The Anglo-Saxon forms of the other words are as follows:-- Bycan, bóhte. Sêcan, sóhte. Bringan, bróhte. Þencan, þóhte. Wyrcan, wórhte. § 309. Out of the three classes into which the weak verbs in Anglo-Saxon are divided, only one takes a vowel before the d or t. The other two add the syllables -te or -de, to the last letter of the original word. The vowel that, in one out of the three Anglo-Saxon classes, precedes d is o. Thus we have _lufian_, _lufode_; _clypian_, _clypode_. In the other two classes the forms are respectively _bærnan_, _bærnde_; and _tellan_, _tealde_, no vowel being found. The _participle_, however, as stated above, ended, not in -de or -te, but in -d or -t; and in two out of the three classes it was preceded by a vowel; the vowel being e,--_gelufod_, _bærned_, _geteald_. Now in those conjugations where no vowel preceded the d of the præterite, and where the original word ended in -d or -t, a difficulty, which has already been indicated, arose. To add the sign of the præterite to a word like _eard-ian_ (_to dwell_) was an easy matter, inasmuch as _eardian_ was a word belonging to the first class, and in the first class the præterite was formed in -ode. Here the vowel o kept the two d's from coming in contact. With words, however, like _métan_ and _sendan_, this was not the case. Here no vowel intervened; so that the natural præterite 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 præterite. This difficulty, existing in the present English as it existed in the Anglo-Saxon, modifies the præterites of most words ending in -t or -d. § 310. In several words there is the actual addition of the syllable -ed; in other words d is separated from the last letter of the original word by the addition of a vowel; as _ended_, _instructed_, &c. § 311. In several words the final -d is changed into -t, as _bend_, _bent_; _rend_, _rent_; _send_, _sent_; _gild_, _gilt_; _build_, _built_; _spend_, _spent_, &c. § 312. In several words the vowel of the root is changed; as _feed_, _fed_; _bleed_, _bled_; _breed_, _bred_; _meet_, _met_; _speed_, _sped_; _r[=e]ad_, _r[)e]ad_, &c. Words of this last-named class cause occasional difficulty to the grammarian. No addition is made to the root, and, in this circumstance, they agree with the strong verbs. Moreover, there is a change of the vowel. In this circumstance also they agree with the strong verbs. Hence with forms like _fed_ and _led_ we are in doubt as to the conjugation. This doubt we have three means of settling, as may be shown by the word _beat_. a. _By the form of the participle._--The -en in _beaten_ shows that the word _beat_ is strong. b. _By the nature of the vowel._--The weak form of _to beat_ would be _bet_, or _be[)a]t_, after the analogy of _feed_ and _read_. By some persons the word is pronounced _bet_, and with those who do so the word is weak. c. _By a knowledge of the older forms._--The Anglo-Saxon form is _beáte_, _beot_. There is no such a weak form as _beáte_, _bætte_. The præterite of _sendan_ is _sende_ weak. There is in Anglo-Saxon no such form as _sand_, strong. In all this we see a series of expedients for distinguishing the præterite form from the present, when the root ends with the same sound with which the affix begins. The change from a long vowel to a short one, as in _feed_, _fed_, &c., can only take place where there is a long vowel to be changed. Where the vowels are short, and, at the same time, the word ends in -d, the -d of the present may become -t in the præterite. Such is the case with _bend_, _bent_. When there is no long vowel to shorten, and no -d to change into -t, the two tenses, of necessity, remain alike; such is the case with _cut_, _cost_, &c. § 313. The following verbs form their præterite in -t:-- _Present._ _Præterite._ Leave [60]Lef_t_ not [61]Leav_ed_. Cleave Clef_t_ -- Cleav_ed_. Bereave Beref_t_ -- Bereav_ed_. Deal [62]Deal_t_ -- Deal_ed_. Feel Fel_t_ -- Feel_ed_. Dream [60]Drem_t_ -- Dream_ed_. Learn [60]Lern_t_ -- Learn_ed_. § 314. Certain _so-called_ irregularities may now be noticed.--_Made_, _had_.--In these words there is nothing remarkable but the ejection of a consonant. The Anglo-Saxon forms are _macode_ and _hæfde_, respectively. The words, however, in regard to the amount of change, are not upon a _par_. The f in _hæfde_ was probably sounded as v. Now v is a letter excessively liable to be ejected, which k is not. K, before it is ejected, is generally changed into either g or y. _Would_, _should_, _could_.--It must not be imagined that _could_ is in the same predicament with these words. In _will_ and _shall_ the -l is part of the original word. This is not the case with _can_. For the form _could_, see § 331. § 315. _Aught_.--In Anglo-Saxon _áhte_, the præterite of the present form _áh_, plural _ágon_.--As late as the time of Elizabeth we find _owe_ used for _own_. The present form _own_ seems to have arisen from the plural _ágon_. _Aught_ is the præterite of the Anglo-Saxon _áh_; _owed_ of the English _owe_ = _debeo_; _owned_ of the English _own_ = _possideo_. The word _own_, in the expression _to own to a thing_, has a totally different origin. It comes from the Anglo-Saxon _an_ (plural, _unnon_) = _I give_, or _grant_ = _concedo_. § 316. _Durst_.--The verb _dare_ is both transitive and intransitive. We can say either _I dare do such a thing_, or _I dare (challenge) such a man to do it_. This, in the present tense, is unequivocally correct. In the past the double power of the word _dare_ is ambiguous; still it is, to my mind at least, allowable. We can certainly say _I dared him to accept my challenge_; and we can, perhaps, say _I dared venture on the expedition_. In this last sentence, however, _durst_ is the preferable expression. Now, although _dare_ is both transitive and intransitive, _durst_ is only intransitive. It never agrees with the Latin word _provoco_; only with the Latin word _audeo_. Moreover, the word _durst_ has both a present and a past sense. The difficulty which it presents consists in the presence of the -st, letters characteristic of the second person singular, but here found in all the persons alike; as _I durst_, _they durst_, &c. This has still to be satisfactorily accounted for. _Must_.--A form common to all persons, numbers, and tenses. That neither the -s nor the -t are part of the original root, is indicated by the Scandinavian form _maae_ (Danish), pronounced _moh_; præterite _maatt_. This form has still to be satisfactorily accounted for. _Wist_.--In its present form a regular præterite from _wiss_ = _know_. The difficulties of this word arise from the parallel forms _wit_ (as in _to wit_), and _wot_ = _knew_. The following are the forms of this peculiar word:-- In Moeso-Gothic, 1 sing. pres. ind. _váit_; 2. do., _váist_; 1 pl. _vitum_; præterite 1 s. _vissa_; 2 _vissêss_; 1 pl. _vissêdum_. From the form _váist_ we see that the second singular is formed after the manner of _must_; that is, _váist_ stands instead of _váit-t_. From the form _vissêdum_ we see that the præterite is not strong, but weak; therefore that _vissa_ is euphonic for _vista_. In Anglo-Saxon.--_Wât_, _wást_, _witon_, _wiste_, and _wisse_, _wiston_.--Hence the double forms, _wiste_, and _wisse_, verify the statement concerning the Moeso-Gothic _vissa_. In Icelandic.--_Veit_, _veizt_, _vitum_, _vissi_. Danish _ved_, _vide_, _vidste_. Observe the form _vidste_; since, in it, the d of the root (in spelling, at least) is preserved. The t of the Anglo-Saxon _wiste_ is the t, not of the root, but of the inflection. In respect to the four forms in question, viz., _wit_, _wot_, _wiss_, _wisst_, the first seems to be the root; the second a strong præterite regularly formed, but used (like [Greek: oida] in Greek) with a present sense; the third a weak præterite, of which the -t has been ejected by a euphonic process, used also with a present sense; the fourth is a second singular from _wiss_ after the manner of _wert_ from _were_, a second singular from _wit_ after the manner of _must_, a secondary præterite from _wiss_, or finally, the form _wisse_, anterior to the operation of the euphonic process that ejected the -t. § 317. In the phrase _this will do_ = _this will answer the purpose_, the word _do_ is wholly different from the word _do_, meaning _to act_. In the first case it is equivalent to the Latin _valere_; in the second to the Latin _facere_. Of the first the Anglo-Saxon inflection is _deáh_, _dugon_, _dohte_, _dohtest_, &c. Of the second it is _dó_, _doð_, _dyde_, &c. I doubt whether the præterite _did_, as equivalent to _valebat_ = _was good for_, is correct. In the phrase _it did for him_ = _it finished him_, either meaning may be allowed. In the present Danish they write _duger_, but say _duer_: as _duger et noget?_ = _Is it worth anything?_ pronounced _dooer deh note?_ This accounts for the ejection of the g. The Anglo-Saxon form _deáh_ does the same. § 318. _Mind--mind and do so and so_.--In this sentence the word _mind_ is wholly different from the noun _mind_. The Anglo-Saxon forms are _geman_, _gemanst_, _gemunon_, without the -d; this letter occurring only in the præterite tense (_gemunde_, _gemundon_), of which it is the sign. _Mind_ is, then, a præterite 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 præterite formed from a præterite. § 319. _Yode_.--The obsolete præterite of _go_, now replaced by _went_, the præterite of _wend_. Regular, except that the initial g has become y. § 320. _Did_.--See § 317. _Did_, from _do_ = _facio_, is a _strong_ verb. This we infer from the form of its participle _done_. If so the final -d is not the same as the -d in _moved_. What is it? There are good grounds for believing that in the word _did_ we have a single instance of the old _reduplicate præterite_. If so, it is the latter d which is radical, and the former which is inflectional. * * * * * CHAPTER XXV. ON CONJUGATION. § 321. Attention is directed to the following list of verbs. In the present English they all form the præterite in -d or -t; in Anglo-Saxon, they all formed it by a change of the vowel. In other words they are _weak verbs that were once strong_. _Præterites._ _English._ _Anglo-Saxon._ _Present._ _Præterite._ | _Present._ _Præterite._ | Wreak Wreaked. | Wrece Wræc. Fret Fretted. | Frete Fræt. Mete Meted. | Mete Mæt. Shear Sheared. | Scere Scear. Braid Braided. | Brede Bræd. Knead Kneaded. | Cnede Cnæd. Dread Dreaded. | Dræde Dred. Sleep Slept. | Slápe Slep. Fold Folded. | Fealde Feold. Wield Wielded. | Wealde Weold. Wax Waxed. | Weaxe Weox. Leap Leapt. | Hleápe Hleop. Sweep Swept. | Swápe Sweop. Weep Wept. | Wepe Weop. Sow Sowed. | Sáwe Seow. Bake Baked. | Bace Bók. Gnaw Gnawed. | Gnage Gnóh. Laugh Laughed. | Hlihhe Hlóh. Wade Waded. | Wade Wód. Lade Laded. | Hlade Hlód. Grave Graved. | Grafe Gróf. Shave Shaved. | Scafe Scóf. Step Stepped. | Steppe Stóp. Wash Washed. | Wacse Wócs. Bellow Bellowed. | Belge Bealh. Swallow Swallowed. | Swelge Swealh. Mourn Mourned. | Murne Mearn. Spurn Spurned. | Spurne Spearn. Carve Carved. | Ceorfe Cearf. Starve Starved. | Steorfe Stærf. Thresh Threshed. | Þersce Þærsc. Hew Hewed. | Heawe Heow. Flow Flowed. | Flówe Fleow. Row Rowed. | Rówe Reow. Creep Crept. | Creópe Creáp. Dive Dived. | Deófe Deáf. Shove Shoved. | Scéofe Sceáf. Chew Chewed. | Ceówe Ceáw. Brew Brewed. | Breówe Breáw. Lock Locked. | Lûce Leác. Suck Sucked. | Sûce Seác. Reek Reeked. | Reóce Reác. Smoke Smoked. | Smeóce Smeác. Bow Bowed. | Beóge Beáh. Lie Lied. | Leóge Leáh. Gripe Griped. | Grípe Gráp. Span Spanned. | Spanne Spén. Eke Eked. | Eáce Eóc. Fare Fared. | Fare Fôr. § 322. Respecting the _strong_ verb, the following general statements may be made: 1. Many strong verbs become weak; whilst no weak verb ever becomes strong. 2. All the strong verbs are of Saxon origin. None are classical. 3. The greater number of them are strong throughout the Gothic tongues. 4. No new word is ever, upon its importation, inflected according to the strong conjugation. It is always weak. As early as A.D. 1085, the French word _adouber_ = _to dub_, was introduced into English. Its præterite was _dubbade_. 5. All derived words are inflected weak. The intransitive forms _drink_ and _lie_, are strong; the transitive forms _drench_ and _lay_, are weak. This shows that the division of verbs into _weak_ and _strong_ is a truly natural one. * * * * * CHAPTER XXVI. DEFECTIVENESS AND IRREGULARITY. § 323. The distinction between irregularity and defectiveness has been foreshadowed. It is now more urgently insisted on. The words that have hitherto served as illustrations are the personal pronouns _I_ or _me_, the adjectives _good_, _better_, and _best_. The view of these words was as follows; viz., that none of them were _irregular_, but that they were all _defective_. _Me_ wanted the nominative, _I_ the oblique cases. _Good_ was without a comparative, _better_ and _best_ had no positive degree. Now _me_ and _better_ may be said to make good the defectiveness of _I_ and _good_; and _I_ and _good_ may be said to replace the forms wanting in _me_ and _better_. This gives us the principle of _compensation_. To introduce a new term, _I_ and _me_, _good_ and _better_, may be said to be _complementary_ to each other. What applies to nouns applies to verbs also. _Go_ and _went_ are not irregularities. _Go_ is defective in the past tense. _Went_ is without a present. The two words, however, compensate their mutual deficiencies, and are complementary to each other. The distinction between defectiveness and irregularity, is the first instrument of criticism for coming to true views concerning the proportion of the regular and irregular verbs. § 324. The second instrument of criticism in determining the irregular verbs, is the meaning that we attach to the term. It is very evident that it is in the power of the grammarian to raise the number of etymological irregularities to any amount, by narrowing the definition of the word _irregular_; in other words, by framing an exclusive rule. The current rule of the common grammarians is that the præterite is formed _by the addition of_ -t, or -d, or -ed; a position sufficiently exclusive; since it proscribes not only the whole class of strong verbs, but also words like _bent_ and _sent_, where -t exists, but where it does not exist as _an addition_. The regular forms, it may be said, should be _bended_ and _sended_. Exclusive, however, as the rule in question is, it is plain that it might be made more so. The regular forms might, by the _fiat_ of a rule, be restricted to those in -d. In this case words like _wept_ and _burnt_ would be added to the already numerous list of irregulars. Finally, a further limitation might be made, by laying down as a rule that no word was regular, unless it ended in -ed. § 325. Thus much concerning the modes of making rules exclusive, and, consequently, of raising the amount of irregularities. This is the last art that the philosophic grammarian is ambitious of acquiring. True etymology _reduces_ irregularity; and that by making the rules of grammar, not exclusive, but general. _The quantum of irregularity is in the inverse proportion to the generality of our rules._ In language itself there is no irregularity. The word itself is only another name for our ignorance of the processes that change words; and, as irregularity is in the direct proportion to the exclusiveness of our rules, the exclusiveness of our rules is in the direct proportion to our ignorance of etymological processes. § 326. The explanation of some fresh terms will lead us towards the definition of the word _irregular_. _Vital and obsolete processes._--The word _moved_ is formed from _move_, by the addition of -d. The addition of -d is the process by which the present form is rendered præterite. The word _fell_ is formed from _fall_, by changing a into e. The change of vowel is the process by which the present form is rendered præterite. Of the two processes the result is the same. In what respect do they differ? For the sake of illustration, let a new word be introduced into the language. Let a præterite tense of it be formed. This præterite would be formed, not by changing the vowel, but by adding -d. No _new_ verb ever takes a strong præterite. The like takes place with nouns. No _new_ substantive would form its plural, like _oxen_ or _geese_, by adding -en, or by changing the vowel. It would rather, like _fathers_ and _horses_, add the lene sibilant. Now, the processes that change _fall_, _ox_ and _goose_ into _fell_, _oxen_, and _geese_, inasmuch as they cease to operate on the language in its present stage, are _obsolete_ processes; whilst those that change _move_ into _moved_, and _horse_ into _horses_, operating on the language in its present stage, are _vital_ processes. A definition of the word _irregular_ might be so framed as to include all words whose forms could not be accounted for by the vital processes. Such a definition would make all the strong verbs irregular. The very fact of so natural a class as that of the strong verbs being reduced to the condition of irregulars, invalidates such a definition as this. § 327. _Processes of necessity as opposed to processes of habit._--The combinations -pd, -fd, -kd, -sd, and some others, are unpronounceable. Hence words like _step_, _quaff_, _back_, _kiss_, &c., take after them the sound of -t; _stept_, _quafft_, &c., being their præterites, instead of _stepd_, _quaffd_. Here the change from -d to -t is a matter of necessity. It is not so with words like _weep_, and _wept_, &c. Here the change of vowel is not necessary. _Weept_ might have been said if the habit of the language had permitted. A definition of the word _irregular_ might be so framed as to include all words whose natural form was modified by any euphonic process whatever. In this case _stept_ (modified by a process of necessity), and _wept_ (modified by a process of habit), would be equally irregular. A less limited definition might account words regular as long as the process by which they are deflected from their natural form was a process of necessity. Those, however, which were modified by a process of habit it would class with the irregulars. Definitions thus limited arise from ignorance of euphonic processes, or rather from an ignorance of the generality of their operation. § 328. _Ordinary processes as opposed to extraordinary processes._--The whole scheme of language is analogical. A new word introduced into a language takes the forms of its cases or tenses, &c., from the forms of the cases or tenses, &c., of the old words. The analogy is extended. Now few forms (if any) are so unique as not to have some others corresponding with them; and few processes of change are so unique as not to affect more words than one. The forms _wept_, and _slept_, correspond with each other. They are brought about by the same process: viz., by the shortening of the vowel in _weep_ and _sleep_. The analogy of _weep_ is extended to _sleep_, and _vice versâ_. Changing our expression, a common influence affects both words. The alteration itself is the leading fact. The extent of its influence is an instrument of classification. When processes affect a considerable number of words, they may be called _ordinary_ processes; as opposed to _extraordinary_ processes, which affect one or few words. When a word stands by itself, with no other corresponding to it, we confess our ignorance, and say that it is affected by an extraordinary process, by a process peculiar to itself, or by a process to which we know nothing similar. A definition of the word _irregular_ might be so framed as to include all words affected by extraordinary processes; the rest being considered regular. § 329. _Positive processes as opposed to ambiguous processes._--The words _wept_ and _slept_ are similarly affected. Each is changed from _weep_ and _sleep_ respectively; and we know that the process which affects the one is the process that affects the other also. Here there is a positive process. Reference is now made to words of a different sort. The nature of the word _worse_ has been explained in the Chapter on the Comparative Degree. There the form is accounted for in two ways, of which only one can be the true one. Of the two processes, each might equally have brought about the present form. Which of the two it was, we are unable to say. Here the process is _ambiguous_. A definition of the word _irregular_ might be so framed as to include all words affected by ambiguous processes. § 330. _Normal processes as opposed to processes of confusion._--Let a certain word come under class A. Let all words under class A be similarly affected. Let a given word come under class A. This word will be affected even as the rest of class A is affected. The process affecting, and the change resulting, will be normal, regular, or analogical. Let, however, a word, instead of really coming under class A, only _appear_ to do so. Let it be dealt with accordingly. The analogy then is a false one. The principle of imitation is a wrong one. The process affecting is a process of confusion. Examples of this (a few amongst many) are words like _songstress_, _theirs_, _minded_, where the words _songstr-_, _their-_, _mind-_, are dealt with as roots, which they are not. Ambiguous processes, extraordinary processes, processes of confusion--each, or all of these, are legitimate reasons for calling words irregular. The practice of etymologists will determine what definition is most convenient. With extraordinary processes we know nothing about the word. With ambiguous processes we are unable to make a choice. With processes of confusion we see the analogy, but, at the same time, see that it is a false one. § 331. _Could_.--With all persons who pronounce the l this word is truly irregular. The Anglo-Saxon form is _cuðe_. The l is inserted by a process of confusion. _Can_, _cunne_, _canst_, _cunnon_, _cunnan_, _cuðe_, _cuðon_, _cuð_--such are the remaining forms in Anglo-Saxon. None of them account for the l. The presence of the l makes the word _could_ irregular. No reference to the allied languages accounts for it. Notwithstanding this, the presence of the l is accounted for. In _would_ and _should_ the l has a proper place. It is part of the original words, _will_ and _shall_. A false analogy looked upon _could_ in the same light. Hence a true irregularity; _provided that the _L_ be pronounced_. The L, however, is pronounced by few, and that only in pursuance with the spelling. This reduces the word _could_ to an irregularity, not of language, but only of orthography. That the mere ejection of the -n in _can_, and that the mere lengthening of the vowel, are not irregularities, we learn from a knowledge of the processes that convert the Greek [Greek: odontos] (_odontos_) into [Greek: odous] (_odows_). § 332. The verb _quoth_ is truly defective. It is found in only one tense, one number, and one person. It is the third person singular of the præterite 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 cweðe_, _þú cwyst_, _he cwyð_; _ic cwæð_, _þú cwæðe_, _he cwæð_, _we cwædon_, _ge cwædon_, _hi cwædon_; imperative, _cweð_; 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 æ, as _cwæð_. Like one of the forms of _speak_, its English form is in o, as _quoth_, _spoke_. § 333. The principle that gives us the truest views of the structure of language is that which considers no word irregular unless it be affected by either an _ambiguous_ process, or by a _process of confusion_. The words affected by _extraordinary processes_ form a provisional class, which a future increase of our etymological knowledge may show to be regular. _Worse_ and _could_ are the fairest specimens of our irregulars. Yet even _could_ is only an irregularity in the written language. The printer makes it, and the printer can take it away. Hence the class, instead of filling pages, is exceedingly limited. * * * * * CHAPTER XXVII. THE IMPERSONAL VERBS. § 334. In _me-seems_, and _me-thinks_, the _me_ is dative rather than accusative, and = _mihi_ and [Greek: moi] rather than _me_ and [Greek: me]. § 335. In _me-listeth_, the _me_ is accusative rather than dative, and = _me_ and [Greek: me] rather than _mihi_ and [Greek: moi]. For the explanation of this difference see _Syntax_, Chapter XXI. * * * * * CHAPTER XXVIII. THE VERB SUBSTANTIVE. § 336. The verb substantive is generally dealt with as an _irregular_ verb. This is inaccurate. The true notion is that the idea of _being_ or _existing_ is expressed by four different verbs, each of which is defective in some of its parts. The parts, however, that are wanting in one verb, are made up by the inflections of one of the others. There is, for example, no præterite 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 præterite form of _am_ is made up by the word _was_. § 337. _Was_ is defective, except in the præterite tense, where it is found both in the indicative and conjunctive. _Indicative._ | _Conjunctive._ _Sing._ _Plur._ | _Sing._ _Plur._ 1. Was Were. | 1. Were Were. 2. Wast Were. | 2. Wert Were. 3. Was Were. | 3. Were Were. In the older stages of the Gothic languages the word had both a full conjugation and a regular one. In Anglo-Saxon it had an infinitive, a participle present, and a participle past. In Moeso-Gothic it was inflected throughout with -s; as _visa_, _vas_, _vêsum_, _visans_. In that language it has the power of the Latin _maneo_ = _to remain_. The r first appears in the Old High German, _wisu_, _was_, _wârumés_, _wësaner_. In Norse the s _entirely_ disappears, and the word is inflected with r throughout; _vera_, _var_, _vorum_, &c. § 338. _Be_ is inflected in Anglo-Saxon throughout the present tense, both indicative and subjunctive. It is found also as an infinitive, _beón_; as a gerund, _to beonne_; and as a participle, _beonde_; in the present English its inflection is as follows: _Present._ _Conjunctive._ | _Imperative._ _Sing._ _Plur._ | _Sing._ _Plur._ Be Be. | -- -- -- -- | Be Be Be Be | -- -- _Infin._ To be. _Pres. P._ Being. _Past. Part._ Been. § 339. The line in Milton beginning _If thou beest he_--(P. L. b. ii.), leads to the notion that the antiquated form _beest_ is not indicative, but conjunctive. Such, however, is not the case: _byst_ in Anglo-Saxon is indicative, the conjunctive form being _beó_. _And every thing that pretty bin_ (Cymbeline).--Here the word _bin_ is the conjunctive plural, in Anglo-Saxon _beón_; so that the words _every thing_ are to be considered equivalent to the plural form _all things_. The phrase in Latin would stand thus, _quotquot pulchra sint_; in Greek, thus, [Greek: ha an kala êi]. The _indicative_ plural is, in Anglo-Saxon, not _beón_, but _beóð_ and _beó_. § 340. In the "Deutsche Grammatik" it is stated that the Anglo-Saxon forms _beô_, _bist_, _bið_, _beoð_, or _beó_, have not a present but a _future_ sense; that whilst _am_ means _I am_, _beó_ 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_; _búsu_ = _I shall be_, Lithuanic. _Esmu_ = _I am_; _buhshu_ = _I shall be_, Livonic.--_Jesm_ = _I am_; _budu_ = _I shall be_, Slavonic.--_Gsem_ = _I am_; _budu_ = _I shall be_, Bohemian. This, however, proves, not that there is in Anglo-Saxon a future tense, but that the word _beó_ 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 _beón_ in Anglo-Saxon:--_"Hi ne _beóð_ na cílde, soðlice, on domesdæge, ac _beóð_ swa micele menn swa swa hi migton beón gif hi full weoxon on gewunlicre ylde."_--Ælfric's Homilies. "They _will not be_ children, forsooth, on Domesday, but _will be_ as much (so muckle) men as they might be if they were full grown (waxen) in customary age." § 341. Now, if we consider the word _beón_ like the word _weorðan_ (see § 343) to mean not so much _to be_ as to _become_, we get an element of the idea of futurity. Things which are _becoming anything_ have yet something further to either do or suffer. Again, from the idea of futurity we get the idea of contingency, and this explains the subjunctive power of _be_. In English we often say _may_ for _shall_, and the same was done in Anglo-Saxon. § 342. _Am_.--Of this form it should be stated that the letter -m is no part of the original word. It is the sign of the first person, just as it is in _Greek_, and several other languages. It should also be stated, that although the fact be obscured, and although the changes be insufficiently accounted for, the forms _am_, _art_, _are_, and _is_, are not, like _am_ and _was_, parts of different words, but forms of one and the same word; in other terms, that, although between _am_ and _be_ there is no etymological connexion, there is one between _am_ and _is_. This we collect from the comparison of the Indo-European languages. 1. 2. 3. Sanskrit _Asmi_ _Asi_ _Asti_. Zend _Ahmi_ _Asi_ _Ashti_. Greek [Greek: Eimi] [Greek: Eis] [Greek: Esti]. Latin _Sum_ _Es_ _Est_. Lithuanic _Esmi_ _Essi_ _Esti_. Old Slavonic _Yesmy_ _Yesi_ _Yesty_. Moeso-Gothic _Im_ _Is_ _Ist_. Old Saxon -- [63]_Is_ _Ist_. Anglo-Saxon _Eom_ _Eart_ _Is_. Icelandic _Em_ _Ert_ _Er_. English _Am_ _Art_ _Is_. § 343. _Worth_.--In the following lines of Scott, the word _worth_ = _is_, and is a fragment of the regular Anglo-Saxon verb _weorðan_ = _to be_, or _to become_; German _werden_. Woe _worth_ the chase, woe _worth_ the day, That cost thy life, my gallant grey.--_Lady of the Lake._ * * * * * CHAPTER XXIX. THE PRESENT PARTICIPLE. § 344. The present participle, called also the active participle and the participle in -ing, is formed from the original word by adding -ing; as, _move_, _moving_. In the older languages the termination was more marked, being -nd. Like the Latin participle in -ns, it was originally declined. The Moeso-Gothic and Old High German forms are _habands_ and _hapêntér_ = _having_, respectively. The -s in the one language, and the -êr 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_. § 345. It has often been remarked that the participle is used in many languages as a substantive. This is true in Greek, [Greek: Ho prassôn] = _the actor_, when a male. [Greek: Hê prassousa] = _the actor_, when a female. [Greek: To prattou] = _the active principle of a thing_. But it is also stated, that, in the English language, the participle is used as a substantive in a greater degree than elsewhere, and that it is used in several cases and in both numbers, e.g., _Rising_ early is healthy, There is health _in rising_ early. This is the advantage _of rising_ early. The _risings_ in the North, &c. Some acute remarks of Mr. R. Taylor, in the Introduction to his edition of Tooke's "Diversions of Purley," modify this view. According to these, the -ing in words like _rising_ is not the -ing of the present participle; neither has it originated in the Anglo-Saxon -end. It is rather the -ing in words like _morning_; which is anything but a participle of the non-existent verb _morn_, and which has originated in the Anglo-Saxon substantival termination -ung. Upon this Rask writes as follows:--"_Gitsung_, _gewilnung_ = _desire_; _swutelung_ = _manifestation_; _clænsung_ = _a cleansing_; _sceawung_ = _view_, _contemplation_; _eorð-beofung_ = _an earthquake_; _gesomnung_ = _an assembly_. This termination is chiefly used in forming substantives from verbs of the first class in -ian; as _hálgung_ = _consecration_, from _hálgian_ = _to consecrate_. These verbs are all feminine."--"Anglo-Saxon Grammar," p. 107. Now, whatever may be the theory of the origin of the termination -ing in old phrases like _rising early is healthy_, it cannot apply to expressions of recent introduction. Here the direct origin in -ung is out of the question. The view, then, that remains to be taken of the forms in question is this: 1. That the older forms in -ing are substantival in origin, and = the Anglo-Saxon -ung. 2. That the latter ones are _irregularly_ participial, and have been formed on a false analogy. * * * * * CHAPTER XXX. THE PAST PARTICIPLE. § 346. A. _The participle in_ -EN.--In the Anglo-Saxon this participle was declined like the adjectives. Like the adjectives, it is, in the present English, undeclined. In Anglo-Saxon it always ended in -en, as _sungen_, _funden_, _bunden_. In English this -en is often wanting, as _found_, _bound_; the word _bounden_ being antiquated. Words where the -en is wanting may be viewed in two lights; 1, they may be looked upon as participles that have lost their termination; 2, they may be considered as præterites with a participial sense. § 347. _Drank_, _drunk_, _drunken_.--With all words wherein the vowel of the plural differs from that of the singular, the participle takes the plural form. To say _I have drunk_, is to use an ambiguous expression; since _drunk_ may be either a participle _minus_ its termination, or a præterite with a participial sense. To say _I have drank_, is to use a præterite for a participle. To say _I have drunken_, is to use an unexceptional form. In all words with a double form, as _spake_ and _spoke_, _brake_ and _broke_, _clave_ and _clove_, the participle follows the form in o, as _spoken_, _broken_, _cloven_. _Spaken_, _braken_, _claven_ are impossible forms. There are degrees in laxity of language, and to say _the spear is broke_ is better than to say _the spear is brake_. § 348. As a general rule, we find the participle in -en wherever the præterite 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 præterite weak. I remember no instances of the converse. This is only another way of saying that the præterite has a greater tendency to pass from strong to weak than the participle. § 349. In the Latin language the change from s to r, and _vice versâ_, 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 præterites. Ceóse, _I choose_; ceâs, _I chose_; curon, _we chose_; gecoren, _chosen_. Forleóse, _I lose_; forleás, _I lost_; forluron, _we lost_; forloren, _lost_. Hreose, _I rush_; hreás, _I rushed_; hruron, _we rushed_; gehroren, _rushed_. This accounts for the participial form _forlorn_, or _lost_, in New High German _verloren_. In Milton's lines, ---- the piercing air Burns _frore_, and cold performs the effect of fire, _Paradise Lost_, b. ii., we have a form from the Anglo-Saxon participle _gefroren_ = _frozen_. § 350. B. The _participle_ in -D, -T, or -ED.--In the Anglo-Saxon this participle was declined like the adjective. Like the adjective, it is, in the present English, undeclined. In Anglo-Saxon it differed in form from the præterite, inasmuch as it ended in -ed, or -t, whereas the præterite ended in -ode, -de, or -te: as, _lufode_, _bærnde_, _dypte_, præterites; _gelufod_, _bærned_, _dypt_, participles. As the ejection of the e (in one case final in the other not) reduces words like _bærned_ and _bærnde_ to the same form, it is easy to account for the present identity of form between the weak præterites and the participles in -d: e.g., _I moved_, _I have moved_, &c. § 351. _The prefix_ Y.--In the older writers, and in works written, like Thomson's "Castle of Indolence," in imitation of them, we find prefixed to the præterite 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, _hâten_ = _called_, _ge-hâten_ = _promised_; _boren_ = _borne_, _ge-boren_ = _born_. 5. It occurs in nouns as well as verbs. 6. Its power, in the case of nouns, is generally some idea of _association_, or _collection_.--Moeso-Gothic, _sinþs_ = _a journey_, _ga-sinþa_ = _a companion_; Old High German, _perc_ = _hill_; _ki-perki_ (_gebirge_) = _a range of hills_. 7. But it has also a _frequentative_ power; a frequentative power, which is, in all probability, secondary to its collective power; since things which recur frequently recur with a tendency to collection or association; Middle High German, _ge-rassel_ = _rustling_; _ge-rumpel_ = _c-rumple_. 8. And it has also the power of expressing the possession of a quality. _Anglo-Saxon._ _English._ _Anglo-Saxon._ _Latin._ Feax _Hair_ _Ge-feax_ _Comatus._ Heorte _Heart_ _Ge-heort_ _Cordatus._ Stence _Odour_ _Ge-stence_ _Odorus._ This power is also a collective, since every quality is associated with the object that possesses it; _a sea with waves_ = _a wavy sea_. 9. Hence it is probable that the ga-, ki-, or gi-, Gothic, is the _cum_ of Latin languages. Such, at least, is Grimm's view, as given in the "Deutsche Grammatik," i. 1016. Concerning this, it may be said that it is deficient in an essential point. It does not show how the participle past is collective. Undoubtedly it may be said that every such participle is in the condition of words like _ge-feax_ and _ge-heort_; i.e., that they imply an association between the object and the action or state. But this does not seem to be Grimm's view; he rather suggests that the ge- may have been a prefix to verbs in general, originally attached to all their forms, but finally abandoned everywhere except in the case of the participle. The theory of this prefix has yet to assume a satisfactory form. * * * * * CHAPTER XXXI. COMPOSITION. § 352. In the following words, amongst many others, we have palpable and indubitable specimens of composition--_day-star_, _vine-yard_, _sun-beam_, _apple-tree_, _ship-load_, _silver-smith_, &c. The words _palpable_ and _indubitable_ have been used, because in many cases, as will be seen hereafter, it is difficult to determine whether a word be a true compound or not. § 353. Now, in each of the compounds quoted above, it may be seen that it is the second word which is qualified, or defined, by the first, and that it is not the first which is qualified, or defined, by the second. Of _yards_, _beams_, _trees_, _loads_, _smiths_, there may be many sorts, and, in order to determine what _particular_ sort of _yard_, _beam_, _tree_, _load_, or _smith_, may be meant, the words _vine_, _sun_, _apple_, _ship_, and _silver_, are prefixed. In compound words it is the _first_ term that defines or particularises the _second_. § 354. That the idea given by the word _apple-tree_ is not referable to the words _apple_ and _tree_, irrespective of the order in which they occur, may be seen by reversing the position of them. The word _tree-apple_, although not existing in the language, is as correct a word as _thorn-apple_. In _tree-apple_, the particular sort of _apple_ meant is denoted by the word _tree_, and if there were in our gardens various sorts of plants called _apples_, of which some grew along the ground and others upon trees, such a word as _tree-apple_ would be required in order to be opposed to _earth-apple_, or _ground-apple_, or some word of the kind. In the compound words _tree-apple_ and _apple-tree_, we have the same elements differently arranged. However, as the word _tree-apple_ is not current in the language, the class of compounds indicated by it may seem to be merely imaginary. Nothing is farther from being the case. A _tree-rose_ is a _rose_ of a particular sort. The generality of _roses_ being on _shrubs_, this grows on a _tree_. Its peculiarity consists in this fact, and this particular character is expressed by the word _tree_ prefixed. A _rose-tree_ is a _tree_ of a particular sort, distinguished from _apple-trees_, and _trees_ in general (in other words, particularised or defined), by the word _rose_ prefixed. A _ground-nut_ is a _nut_ particularised by growing in the ground. A _nut-ground_ is a _ground_ particularised by producing nuts. A _finger-ring_, as distinguished from an _ear-ring_, and from _rings_ in general (and so particularised), is a _ring_ for the _finger_. A _ring-finger_, as distinguished from _fore-fingers_, and from _fingers_ in general (and so particularised), is a _finger_ whereon _rings_ are worn. § 355. At times this rule seems to be violated. The words _spit-fire_ and _dare-devil_ seem exceptions to it. At the first glance it seems, in the case of a _spit-fire_, that what he (or she) _spits_ is _fire_; and that, in the case of a _dare-devil_, what he (or she) _dares_ is the _devil_. In this case the initial words _spit_ and _dare_ are particularised by the final ones _fire_ and _devil_. The true idea, however, confirms the original rule. A _spit-fire_ voids his fire by spitting. A _dare-devil_, in meeting the fiend, would not shrink from him, but would defy him. A _spit-fire_ is not one who spits fire, but one whose fire is _spit_. A _dare-devil_ is not one who dares even the devil, but one by whom the devil is even dared. § 356. Of the two elements of a compound word, which is the most important? In one sense the latter, in another sense the former. The latter word is the most _essential_; since the general idea of _trees_ must exist before it can be defined or particularised; so becoming the idea which we have in _apple-tree_, _rose-tree_, &c. The former word, however, is the most _influential_. It is by this that the original idea is qualified. The latter word is the staple original element: the former is the superadded influencing element. Compared with each other, the former element is active, the latter passive. Etymologically speaking, the former element, in English compounds, is the most important. § 357. Most numerous are the observations that bear upon the detail of the composition of words; e.g., how nouns combine with nouns, as in _sun-beam_; nouns with verbs, as in _dare-devil_, &c. It is thought however, sufficient in the present work to be content with, 1. defining the meaning of the term composition; 2. explaining the nature of some obscure compounds. Composition is the joining together, _in language_, of _two different words_, and _treating the combination as a single term_. Observe the words in italics. _In language._--A great number of our compounds, like the word _merry-making_, are divided by the sign -, or the hyphen. It is very plain that if all words _spelt_ with a hyphen were to be considered as compounds, the formation of them would be not a matter of speech, or language, but one of writing or spelling. This distinguishes compounds in language from mere printers' compounds. _Two._--For this, see § 369. _Different._--In Old High German we find the form _sëlp-sëlpo_. Here there is the junction of two words, but not the junction of two _different_ ones. This distinguishes composition from gemination. _Words._--In _father-s_, _clear-er_, _four-th_, &c., there is the addition of a letter or a syllable, and it may be even of the part of a word. There is no addition, however, of a whole word. This distinguishes composition from derivation. _Treating the combination as a single term._--In determining between derived words and compound words, there is an occasional perplexity; the perplexity, however, is far greater in determining between a _compound word_ and _two words_. In the eyes of one grammarian the term _mountain height_ may be as truly a compound word as _sun-beam_. In the eyes of another grammarian it may be no compound word, but two words, just as _Alpine height_ is two words; _mountain_ being dealt with as an adjective. It is in the determination of this that the accent plays an important part. § 358. As a preliminary to a somewhat subtle distinction, the attention of the reader is drawn to the following line, slightly altered, from Churchill:-- "Then rést, my friénd, _and spáre_ thy précious bréath." On each of the syllables _rést_, _friénd_, _spáre_, _préc-_, _bréath_, there is an accent. Each of these syllables must be compared with the one that precedes it; _rest_ with _then_, _friend_ with _my_, and so on throughout the line. Compared with the word _and_, the word _spare_ is not only accented, but the accent is conspicuous and prominent. There is so little on _and_, so much on _spare_, that the disparity of accent is very manifest. Now, if in the place of _and_, there were some other word, a word not so much accented as _spare_, but still more accented than _and_, this disparity would be diminished, and the accents of the two words might be said to be at _par_, or nearly so. As said before, the line was slightly altered from Churchill, the real reading being "Then rést, my friénd, _spare, spare_ thy précious bréath." In the true reading we actually find what had previously only been supposed. In the words _spare, spare_, the accents are nearly at _par_. Such the difference between accent at par and disparity of accent. Good illustrations of the parity and disparity of accent may be drawn from certain names of places. Let there be such a sentence as the following: _the lime house near the bridge north of the new port_. Compare the parity of accent on the pairs of words _lime_ and _house_, _bridge_ and _north_, _new_ and _port_, with the disparity of accent in the compound words _Límehouse_, _Brídgenorth_, and _Néwport_. The separate words _beef steak_, where the accent is nearly at _par_, compared with the compound word _sweépstakes_, where there is a great disparity of accent, are further illustrations of the same difference. The difference between a compound word and a pair of words is further illustrated by comparing such terms as the following:--_bláck bírd_, meaning a _bird that is black_, with _bláckbird_ = the Latin _merula_; _blúe béll_, meaning a _bell that is blue_, with _blúebell_, the flower. Expressions like a _shárp edgéd instrument_, meaning _an instrument that is sharp and has edges_, as opposed to _a shárp-edged instrument_, meaning _an instrument with sharp edges_, further exemplify this difference. Subject to a few exceptions, it may be laid down, that, in the English language, _there is no composition unless there is either a change of form or a change of accent_. § 359. The reader is now informed, that unless he has taken an exception to either a statement or an inference, he has either seen beyond what has been already laid down by the author, or else has read him with insufficient attention. This may be shown by drawing a distinction between a compound form and a compound idea. In the words _a red house_, each word preserves its natural and original meaning, and the statement suggested by the term is _that a house is red_. By a parity of reasoning _a mad house_ should mean a _house that is mad_; and provided that each word retain its _natural meaning_ and its _natural accent_, such is the fact. Let a _house_ mean, as it often does, a _family_. Then the phrase, _a mad house_, means that the _house_, _or family_, _is mad_, just as a _red house_ means that the _house is red_. Such, however, is not the current meaning of the word. Every one knows that _a mad house_ means _a house for mad men_; in which case it is treated as a compound word, and has a marked accent on the first syllable, just as _Límehouse_ has. Now, compared with the word _red house_, meaning a house of a _red colour_, and compared with the words _mad house_, meaning a _deranged family_, the word _mádhouse_, in its common sense, expressed a compound idea; as opposed to two ideas, or a double idea. The word _beef steak_ is evidently a compound idea; but as there is no disparity of accent, it is not a compound word. Its sense is compound. Its form is not compound but double. This indicates the objection anticipated, which is this: viz., that a definition, which would exclude such a word as _beef steak_ from the list of compounds, is, for that very reason, exceptionable. I answer to this, that the term in question is a compound idea, and not a compound form; in other words, that it is a compound in logic, but not a compound in etymology. Now etymology, taking cognisance of forms only, has nothing to do with ideas, except so far as they influence forms. Such is the commentary upon the words, _treating the combination as a single term_; in other words, such the difference between a compound word and two words. The rule, being repeated, stands (subject to exceptions indicated above) thus:--_there is no true composition without either a change of form or a change of accent_. § 360. As I wish to be clear upon this point, I shall illustrate the statement by its application. The term _trée-rose_ is often pronounced _trée róse_; that is, with the accent at _par_. It is compound in the one case; it is a pair of words in the other. The terms _mountain ash_ and _mountain height_ are generally (perhaps always) pronounced with an equal accent on the syllables _mount-_ and _ash_, _mount-_ and _height_, respectively. In this case the word _mountain_ must be dealt with as an adjective, and the words considered as two. The word _moúntain wave_ is often pronounced with a visible diminution of accent on the last syllable. In this case there is a disparity of accent, and the word is compound. § 361. The following quotation indicates a further cause of perplexity in determining between compound words and two words:-- 1. A wet sheet and a blowing gale, A breeze that follows fast; That fills the white and swelling sail, And bends the _gallant mast_.--ALLAN CUNNINGHAM. 2. Britannia needs no bulwarks, No towers along the steep; Her march is o'er the _mountain-wave_, Her home is on the deep.--THOMAS CAMPBELL. To speak first of the term _gallant mast_. If _gallant_ mean _brave_, there are _two words_. If the words be two, there is a stronger accent on _mast_. If the accent on _mast_ be stronger, the rhyme with _fast_ is more complete; in other words, the metre favours the notion of the words being considered as _two_. _Gallant-mast_, however, is a compound word, with an especial nautical meaning. In this case the accent is stronger on _gal-_ and weaker on -mast. This, however, is not the state of things that the metre favours. The same applies to _mountain wave_. The same person who in prose would throw a stronger accent on _mount-_ and a weaker one on _wave_ (so dealing with the word as a compound), might, in poetry, the words _two_, by giving to the last syllable a parity of accent. The following quotation from Ben Jonson may be read in two ways; and the accent may vary with the reading: 1. Lay thy bow of pearl apart, And thy _silver shining_ quiver. 2. Lay thy bow of pearl apart, And thy _silver-shining_ quiver.--_Cynthia's Revels._ § 362. _On certain words wherein the fact of their being compound is obscured._--Composition is the addition of a word to a word, derivation is the addition of certain letters or syllables to a word. In a compound form each element has a separate and independent existence; in a derived form, only one of the elements has such. Now it is very possible that in an older stage of a language two words may exist, may be put together, and may so form a compound, each word having, then, a separate and independent existence. In a later stage of language, however, only one of these words may have a separate and independent existence, the other having become obsolete. In this case a compound word would take the appearance of a derived one, since but one of its elements could be exhibited as a separate and independent word. Such is the case with, amongst others, the word _bishop-ric_. In the present language the word _ric_ has no separate and independent existence. For all this, the word is a true compound, since, in Anglo-Saxon, we have the noun _ríce_ 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. § 363. "Subject to a few exceptions, it may be laid down, that _there is no true composition unless there is either a change of form or a change of accent_."--Such is the statement made in § 358. The first class of exceptions consists of those words where the natural tendency to disparity of accent is traversed by some rule of euphony. For example, let two words be put together, which at their point of contact form a combination of sounds foreign to our habits of pronunciation. The rarity of the combination will cause an effort in utterance. The effort in utterance will cause an accent to be laid on the latter half of the compound. This will equalize the accent, and abolish the disparity. The word _monkshood_, the name of a flower (_aconitum napellus_), where, to my ear at least, there is quite as much accent on the -hood as on the _monks-_, may serve in the way of illustration. _Monks_ is one word, _hood_ another. When joined together, the h- of the -hood is put in immediate apposition with the s of the _monks-_. Hence the combination _monkshood_. At the letters s and h is the point of contact. Now the sound of s followed immediately by the sound of h is a true aspirate. But true aspirates are rare in the English language. Being of rare occurrence, the pronunciation of them is a matter of attention and effort; and this attention and effort create an accent which otherwise would be absent. Hence words like _mónks-hóod_, _well-héad_, and some others. Real reduplications of consonants, as in _hóp-póle_, may have the same parity of accent with the true aspirates: and for the same reasons. They are rare combinations that require effort and attention. § 364. The second class of exceptions contains those words wherein between the first element and the second there is so great a disparity, either in the length of the vowel, or the length of the syllable _en masse_, as to counteract the natural tendency of the first element to become accented. One of the few specimens of this class (which after all may consist of double words) is the term _upstánding_. Here it should be remembered, that words like _hapházard_, _foolhárdy_, _uphólder_, and _withhóld_ come under the first class of the exceptions. § 365. The third class of exceptions contains words like _perchánce_ and _perháps_. In all respects but one these are double words, just as _by chance_ is a double word. _Per_, however, differs from _by_ in having no separate existence. This sort of words we owe to the multiplicity of elements (classical and Gothic) in the English language. § 366. _Peacock_, _peahen_.--If these words be rendered masculine or feminine by the addition of the elements -cock and -hen, the statements made in the beginning of the present chapter are invalidated. Since, if the word _pea-_ be particularized, qualified, or defined by the words -cock and -hen, the _second_ term defines or particularises the _first_, which is contrary to the rule of § 356. The truth, however, is, that the words -cock and -hen are defined by the prefix _pea-_. Preparatory to the exhibition of this, let us remember that the word _pea_ (although now found in composition only) is a true and independent substantive, the name of a species of fowl, like _pheasant_, _partridge_, or any other appellation. It is the Latin _pavo_, German _pfau_. Now if the word _peacock_ mean a _pea_ (_pfau_ or _pavo_) that is a male, then do _wood-cock_, _black-cock_, and _bantam-cock_, mean _woods_, _blacks_, and _bantams_ that are male. Or if the word _peahen_ mean a _pea_ (_pfau_ or _pavo_) that is female, then do _moorhen_ and _guineahen_ mean _moors_ and _guineas_ that are female. Again, if a _peahen_ mean a _pea_ (_pfau_ or _pavo_) that is female, then does the compound _pheasant-hen_ mean the same as _hen-pheasant_; which is not the case. The fact is that _peacock_ means a _cock that is a pea_ (_pfau_ or _pavo_); _peahen_ means a _hen that is a pea_ (_pfau_ or _pavo_); and, finally, _peafowl_ means a _fowl that is a pea_ (_pfau_ or _pavo_). In the same way _moorfowl_ means, not a _moor that is connected with a fowl_, but a _fowl that is connected with a moor_. § 367. It must be clear that in every compound word there are, at least, two parts; i.e., the whole or part of the original, and the whole or part of the superadded word. In the most perfect forms of inflection, however, there is a _third_ element, viz., a vowel, consonant, or syllable that joins the first word with the second. In the older forms of all the Gothic languages the presence of this third element was the rule rather than the exception. In the present English it exists in but few words. a. The -a- in _black-a-moor_ is possibly such a connecting element. b. The -in- in _night-in-gale_ is most probably such a connecting element. Compare the German form _nacht-i-gale_, and remember the tendency of vowels to take the sound of -ng before g. § 368. _Improper compounds._--The -s- in words like _Thur-s-day_, _hunt-s-man_, may be one of two things. a. It may be the sign of the genitive case, so that _Thursday_ = _Thoris dies_. In this case the word is an _improper compound_, since it is like the word _pater-familias_ in Latin, in a common state of syntactical construction. b. It may be a connecting sound, like the -i- in _nacht-i-gale_. Reasons for this view occur in the following fact:-- In the modern German languages the genitive case of feminine nouns ends otherwise than in -s. Nevertheless, the sound of -s- occurs in composition equally, whether the noun it follows be masculine or feminine. This fact, as far as it goes, makes it convenient to consider the sound in question as a connective rather than a case. Probably, it is neither one nor the other exactly, but the effect of a false analogy. § 369. _Decomposites._--"Composition is the joining together of _two_ words."--See § 357. Words like _mid-ship-man_, _gentle-man-like_, &c., where the number of verbal elements seems to amount to _three_, are no exception to this rule; since _compound radicals_ like _midship_ and _gentleman_, are, for the purposes of composition, single words. Compounds wherein one element is compound are called _decomposites_. § 370. There are a number of words which are never found by themselves; or, if so found, have never the same sense that they have in _combination_. Mark the word _combination_. The terms in question are points of _combination_, not of composition: since they form not the parts of words, but the parts of phrases. Such are the expressions _time and tide_--_might and main_--_rede me my riddle_--_pay your shot_--_rhyme and reason_, &c. These words are evidently of the same class, though not of the same species with _bishopric_, _colewort_, _spillikin_, _gossip_, _mainswearer_, &c. These last-mentioned terms give us obsolete words preserved in composition. The former give us obsolete words preserved in combination. * * * * * CHAPTER XXXII. ON DERIVATION AND INFLECTION. § 371. _Derivation_, like _etymology_, is a word used in a wide and in a limited sense. In the wide sense of the term, every word, except it be in the simple form of a root, is a derived word. In this sense the cases, numbers, and genders of nouns, the persons, moods, and tenses of verbs, the ordinal numbers, the diminutives, and even the compound words, are alike matters of derivation. In the wide sense of the term the word _fathers_, from _father_, is equally in a state of derivation with the word _strength_ from _strong_. In the use of the word, even in its limited sense, there is considerable laxity and uncertainty. _Gender_, _number_, _case_.--These have been called the _accidents_ of the noun, and these it has been agreed to separate from derivation in its stricter sense, or from derivation properly so called, and to class together under the name of declension. Nouns are _declined_. _Person_, _number_, _tense_, _voice_.--These have been called the _accidents_ of a verb, and these it has been agreed to separate from derivation properly so called, and to class together under the name of conjugation. Verbs are _conjugated_. Conjugation and declension constitute inflection. Nouns and verbs, speaking generally, are inflected. Inflection, a part of derivation in its wider sense, is separated from derivation properly so called, or from derivation in its limited sense. The degrees of comparison, or certain derived forms of adjectives; the ordinals, or certain derived forms of the numerals; the diminutives, &c., or certain derived forms of the substantive, have been separated from derivation properly so called, and considered as parts of inflection. I am not certain, however, that for so doing there is any better reason than mere convenience. Derivation proper, the subject of the present chapter, comprises all the changes that words undergo, which are not referable to some of the preceding heads. As such, it is, in its details, a wider field than even composition. The details, however, are not entered into. § 372. Derivation proper may be divided according to a variety of principles. Amongst others-- I. _According to the evidence._--In the evidence that a word is not simple, but derived, there are at least two degrees. a. That the word _strength_ is a derived word I collect to a certainty from the word _strong_, an independent form, which I can separate from it. Of the nature of the word _strength_ there is the clearest evidence, or evidence of the first degree. b. _Fowl_, _hail_, _nail_, _sail_, _tail_, _soul_; in Anglo-Saxon, _fugel_, _hægel_, _nægel_, _segel_, _tægel_, _sawel_.--These words are by the best grammarians considered as derivatives. Now, with these words I cannot do what was done with the word _strength_, I cannot take from them the part which I look upon as the derivational addition, and after that leave an independent word. _Strength_ -th is a true word; _fowl_ or _fugel_ -l is no true word. If I believe these latter words to be derivations at all, I do it because I find in words like _harelle_, &c., the -l as a derivational addition. Yet, as the fact of a word being sometimes used as a derivational addition does not preclude it from being at other times a part of the root, the evidence that the words in question are not simple, but derived, is not cogent. In other words, it is evidence of the second degree. II. _According to the effect._--The syllable -en in the word _whiten_ changes the noun _white_ into a verb. This is its effect. We may so classify derivational forms as to arrange combinations like -en (whose effect is to give the idea of the verb) in one order; whilst combinations like -th (whose effect is, as in the word _strength_, to give the idea of abstraction) form another order. III. _According to the form._--Sometimes the derivational element is a vowel (as the -ie in _doggie_), sometimes a consonant (as the -th in _strength_), sometimes a vowel and consonant combined; in other words a syllable (as the -en, in _whiten_), sometimes a change of vowel without any addition (as the -i in _tip_, compared with _top_), sometimes a change of consonant without any addition (as the z in _prize_, compared with _price_). Sometimes it is a change of accent, like a _súrvey_, compared with _to survéy_. To classify derivations in this manner, is to classify them according to their form. IV. _According to the historical origin of the derivational elements._ V. _According to the number of the derivational elements._--In _fisher_, as compared with _fish_, there is but one derivational affix. In _fishery_, as compared with _fish_, the number of derivational elements is two. § 373. In words like _bishopric_, and many others mentioned in the last Chapter, we had compound words under the appearance of derived ones; in words like _upmost_, and many others, we have derivation under the appearance of composition. * * * * * CHAPTER XXXIII. ADVERBS. § 374. _Adverbs._--The adverbs are capable of being classified after a variety of principles. Firstly, they may be divided according to their meaning. In this case we speak of the adverbs of _time_, _place_, _number_, _manner_. § 375. _Well_, _better_, _ill_, _worse_.--Here we have a class of adverbs expressive of degree, or intensity. Adverbs of this kind are capable of taking an inflection, viz., that of the comparative and superlative degrees. _Now_, _then_, _here_, _there_.--In the idea expressed by these words there are no degrees of intensity. Adverbs of this kind are incapable of taking any inflection. Adverbs differ from nouns and verbs in being susceptible of one sort of inflection only, viz., that of degree. § 376. Secondly, adverbs may be divided according to their form and origin. _Better_, _worse_.--Here the words are sometimes adverbs; sometimes adjectives.--_This book is better than that_--here _better_ agrees with _book_, and is, therefore, adjectival. _This looks better than that_--here _better_ qualifies _looks_, and is therefore adverbial. Again; _to do a thing with violence_ is equivalent _to do a thing violently_. This shows how adverbs may arise out of cases. In words like the English _better_, the Latin _vi_ = _violenter_, the Greek [Greek: kalon] = [Greek: kalôs], we have adjectives in their degrees, and substantives in their cases, with adverbial powers. In other words, nouns are deflected from their natural sense to an adverbial one. Adverbs of this kind are adverbs of _deflection_. _Brightly_, _bravely_.--Here an adjective is rendered adverbial by the addition of the derivative syllable -ly. Adverbs like _brightly_, &c., may be called adverbs of _derivation_. _Now_.--This word has not satisfactorily been shown to have originated as any other part of speech but as an adverb. Words of this sort are adverbs _absolute_. § 377. _When_, _now_, _well_, _worse_, _better_--here the adverbial expression consists in a single word, and is _simple_. _To-day_, _yesterday_, _not at all_, _somewhat_--here the adverbial expression consists of a compound word, or a phrase. This indicates the division of adverbs into _simple_ and _complex_. § 378. Adverbs of deflection may originally have been-- a. _Substantive_; as _needs_ in such expressions as _I needs must go_. b. _Adjectives_; as the _sun shines bright_. c. _Prepositions_; as _I go in_, _we go out_; though, it should be added, that in this case we may as reasonably derive the preposition from the adverb as the adverb from the preposition. § 379. Adjectives of deflection derived from substantives may originally have been-- a. _Substantives in the _genitive_ case_; as _needs_. b. _Substantives in the _dative_ case_; as _whil-om_, an antiquated word meaning _at times_, and often improperly spelt _whilome_. In such an expression as _wait a while_, the word still exists; and _while_ = _time_, or rather _pause_; since, in Danish, _hvile_ = _rest_. _El-se_ (for _ell-es_); _unawar-es_; _eftsoon-s_ are _adjectives_ in the genitive case. _By rights_ is a word of the same sort; the -s being the sign of the genitive singular like the -s in _father's_, and not of the accusative plural like the -s in _fathers_. _Once_ (_on-es_); _twice_ (_twi-es_); _thrice_ (_thri-es_) are _numerals_ in the genitive case. § 380. _Darkling_.--This is no participle of a verb _darkle_, but an adverb of derivation, like _unwaringûn_ = _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; _bæclinga_ = _backwards_, _handlunga_ = _hand to hand_, Anglo-Saxon; and, finally, _blindlins_, _backlins_, _darklins_, _middlins_, _scantlins_, _stridelins_, _stowlins_, in Lowland Scotch. * * * * * CHAPTER XXXIV. ON CERTAIN ADVERBS OF PLACE. § 381. It is a common practice for languages to express by different modifications of the same root the three following ideas:-- 1. The idea of rest _in_ a place. 2. The idea of motion _towards_ a place. 3. The idea of motion _from_ a place. This habit gives us three correlative adverbs--one of _position_, and two of _direction_. § 382. It is also a common practice of language to depart from the original expression of each particular idea, and to interchange the signs by which they are expressed; so that a word originally expressive of simple position or _rest in a place_ may be used instead of the word expressive of direction, _or motion between two places_. Hence we say, _come here_, when _come hither_ would be the more correct expression. § 383. The full amount of change in this respect may be seen from the following table, illustrative of the forms _here_, _hither_, _hence_. _Moeso-Gothic_ þar, þaþ, þaþro, _there, thither, thence_. hêr, hiþ, hidrô, _here, hither, hence_. _Old High huâr, huara, huanana, _where, whither, whence_. German_ dâr, dara, danana, _there, thither, thence_. hear, hêra, hinana, _here, hither, hence_. _Old Saxon_ huar, huar, huanan, _where, whither, whence_. thar, thar, thanan, _there, thither, thence_. hêr, hër, hënan, _here, hither, hence_. _Anglo-Saxon_ þar, þider, þonan, _there, thither, thence_. hvar, hvider, hvonan, _where, whither, whence_. hêr, hider, hënan, _here, hither, hence_. _Old Norse_ þar, þaðra, þaðan, _there, thither, thence_. hvar, hvert, hvaðan, _where, whither, whence_. hêr, hëðra, hëðan, _here, hither, hence_. _Middle High dâ, dan, dannen, _there, thither, thence_. German_ wâ, war, wannen, _where, whither, whence_. hie, hër, hennen, _here, hither, hence_. _Modern High da, dar, dannen, _there, thither, thence_. German_ wo, wohin, wannen, _where, whither, whence_. hier, her, hinnen, _here, hither, hence_. § 384. Local terminations of this kind, in general, were commoner in the earlier stages of language than at present. The following are from the Moeso-Gothic:-- Innaþrô = _from within_. Utaþrô = _from without_. Iuþaþrô = _from above_. Fáirraþrô = _from afar_. Allaþrô = _from all quarters_. § 385. The -ce ( = es) in _hen-ce_, _when-ce_, _then-ce_, has yet to be satisfactorily explained. The Old English is _whenn-es_, _thenn-es_. As far, therefore, as the spelling is concerned, they are in the same predicament with the word _once_, which is properly _on-es_, the genitive of _one_. This origin is probable, but not certain. § 386. _Yonder_.--In the Moeso-Gothic we have the following forms: _jáinar_, _jáina_, _jánþrô_ = _illic_, _illuc_, _illinc_. They do not, however, quite explain the form _yon-d-er_. It is not clear whether the d = the -d in _jâind_, or the þ in _jainþro_. § 387. _Anon_, is used by Shakspeare, in the sense of _presently_.--The probable history of this word is as follows: the first syllable contains a root akin to the root _yon_, signifying _distance in place_. The second is a shortened form of the Old High German and Middle High German, -nt, a termination expressive, 1, of removal in _space_; 2, of removal in _time_; Old High German, _ënont_, _ënnont_; Middle High German, _ënentlig_, _jenunt_ = _beyond_. * * * * * CHAPTER XXXV. ON WHEN, THEN, AND THAN. § 388. The Anglo-Saxon adverbs are _whenne_ and _þenne_ = _when_, _then_. The masculine accusative cases of the relative and demonstrative pronoun are _hwæne_ (_hwone_) and _þæne_ (_þone_). Notwithstanding the difference, the first form is a variety of the second; so that the adverbs _when_ and _then_ are really pronominal in origin. § 389. As to the word _than_, the conjunction of comparison, it is another form of _then_; the notions of _order_, _sequence_, and _comparison_ being allied. _This is good_; _then_ (or _next in order_) _that is good_, is an expression sufficiently similar to _this is better than that_ to have given rise to it; and in Scotch and certain provincial dialects we actually find _than_ instead of _then_. * * * * * CHAPTER XXXVI. PREPOSITIONS AND CONJUNCTIONS. § 390. _Prepositions._--Prepositions are wholly unsusceptible of inflection. § 391. _Conjunctions._--Conjunctions, like prepositions, are wholly unsusceptible of inflection. § 392. _Yes_, _no_.--Although _not_ may be considered to be an adverb, _nor_ a conjunction, and _none_ a noun, these two words, the direct categorical affirmative, and the direct categorical negative, are referable to none of the current parts of speech. Accurate grammar places them in a class by themselves. § 393. _Particles._--The word particle is a collective term for all those parts of speech that are _naturally_ unsusceptible of inflection; comprising, 1, interjections; 2, direct categorical affirmatives; 3, direct categorical negatives; 4, absolute conjunctions; 5, absolute prepositions; 6, adverbs unsusceptible of degrees of comparison; 7, inseparable prefixes. * * * * * CHAPTER XXXVII. ON THE GRAMMATICAL POSITION OF THE WORDS MINE AND THINE. § 394. The inflection of pronouns has its natural peculiarities in language. It has also its natural difficulties in philology. These occur not in one language in particular, but in all generally. The most common peculiarity in the grammar of pronouns is the fact of what may be called their _convertibility_. Of this _convertibility_ the following statements serve as illustration:-- 1. _Of case._--In our own language the words _my_ and _thy_ although at present possessives, were previously datives, and, earlier still, accusatives. Again, the accusative _you_ replaces the nominative _ye_, and _vice versâ_. 2. _Of number._--The words _thou_ and _thee_ are, except in the mouths of Quakers, obsolete. The plural forms, _ye_ and _you_, have replaced them. 3. _Of person._--The Greek language gives us examples of this in the promiscuous use of [Greek: nin], [Greek: min], [Greek: sphe], and [Greek: heautou]; whilst _sich_ and _sik_ are used with a similar latitude in the Middle High German and Scandinavian. 4. _Of class._--The demonstrative pronouns become-- a. Personal pronouns. b. Relative pronouns. c. Articles. The reflective pronoun often becomes reciprocal. § 395. These statements are made for the sake of illustrating, not of exhausting, the subject. It follows, however, as an inference from them, that the classification of pronouns is complicated. Even if we knew the original power and derivation of every form of every pronoun in a language, it would be far from an easy matter to determine therefrom the paradigm that they should take in grammar. To place a word according to its power in a late stage of language might confuse the study of an early stage. To say that because a word was once in a given class, it should always be so, would be to deny that in the present English _they_, _these_, and _she_ are personal pronouns at all. The two tests, then, of the grammatical place of a pronoun, its _present power_ and its _original power_, are often conflicting. § 396. In the English language the point of most importance in this department of grammar is the place of forms like _mine_ and _thine_; in other words, of the forms in -n. Now, if we take up the common grammars of the English language _as it is_, we find, that, whilst _my_ and _thy_ are dealt with as genitive cases, _mine_ and _thine_ are considered adjectives. In the _Anglo-Saxon_ grammars, however, _min_ and _þin_, the older forms of _mine_ and _thine_, are treated as genitives or possessives. § 397. This gives us two views of the words _my_ and _thy_. a. They may be genitives or possessives, which were originally datives or accusatives; in which case they are deduced from the Anglo-Saxon _mec_ and _þec_. b. They may be the Anglo-Saxon _min_ and _þin_, _minus_ the final -n. Each of these views has respectable supporters. The former is decidedly preferred by the present writer. § 398. What, however, are _thine_ and _mine_? Are they adjectives like _meus_, _tuus_, and _suus_, or cases like _mei_, _tui_, _sui_, in Latin, and _hi-s_ in English? It is no answer to say that sometimes they are one and sometimes the other. They were not so originally. They did not begin with meaning two things at once; on the contrary, they were either possessive cases, of which the power became subsequently adjectival, or adjectives, of which the power became subsequently possessive. § 399. In Anglo-Saxon and in Old Saxon there is but one form to express the Latin _mei_ (or _tui_), on the one side, and _meus_, _mea_, _meum_ (or _tuus_, &c.), on the other. In several other Gothic tongues, however, there was the following difference of form: _Moeso-Gothic_ meina = _mei_ as opposed to meins = _meus_. þeina = _tui_ -- þeins = _tuus_. _Old High German_ mîn = _mei_ -- mîner = _meus_. dîn = _tui_ -- dîner = _tuus_. _Old Norse_ min = _mei_ -- minn = _meus_. þin = _tui_ -- þinn = _tuus_. _Middle Dutch_ mîns = _mei_ -- mîn = _meus_. dîns = _tui_ -- dîn = _tuus_. _Modern High German_ mein = _mei_ -- meiner = _meus_. dein = _tui_ -- deiner = _tuus_. In these differences of form lie the best reasons for the assumption of a genitive case, as the origin of an adjectival form; and, undoubtedly, in those languages where both forms occur, it is convenient to consider one as a case and one as an adjective. § 400. But this is not the present question. In Anglo-Saxon there is but one form, _min_ and _þin_ = _mei_ and _meus_, _tui_ and _tuus_, indifferently. Is this form an oblique case or an adjective? This involves two sorts of evidence. § 401. _Etymological evidence._--Assuming two _powers_ for the words _min_ and _þin_, 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 _mîner_, as opposed to _mîn_, are concerned, the evidence of the foregoing list is in their favour. But what is the case with the Middle Dutch? The genitive _mîns_ is evidently the derivative of _mîn_. The reason why the forms like _mîner_ seem derived is because they are longer and more complex than the others. Nevertheless, it is by no means an absolute rule in philology that the least compound form is the oldest. A word may be adapted to a secondary meaning by a change in its parts in the way of omission, as well as by a change in the way of addition. § 402. As to the question whether it is most likely for an adjective to be derived from a case, or a case from an adjective, it may be said, that philology furnishes instances both ways. _Ours_ is a case derived, in syntax at least, from an adjective. _Cujum_ (as in _cujum pecus_) and _sestertium_ are Latin instances of a nominative case being evolved from an oblique one. § 403. _Syntactic evidence._--If in Anglo-Saxon we found such expressions as _doel min_ = _pars mei_, _hoelf þin_ = _dimidium tui_, we should have a reason, as far as it went, for believing in the existence of a true genitive. Such instances, however, have yet to be quoted. § 404. Again--as _min_ and _þin_ are declined like adjectives, even as _meus_ and _tuus_ are so declined, we have means of ascertaining their nature from the form they take in certain constructions; thus, _mi-nra_ = _me-orum_, and _min-re_ = _me-æ_, are the genitive plural and the dative singular respectively. Thus, too, the Anglo-Saxon for _of thy eyes_ should be _eagena þinra_, and the Anglo-Saxon for _to my widow_, should be _wuduwan minre_; just as in Latin, they would be _oculorum tuorum_, and _viduæ meæ._ If, however, instead of this we find such expressions as _eagena þin_, or _wuduwan min_, we find evidence in favour of a genitive case; for then the construction is not one of concord, but one of government, and the words _þin_ and _min_ must be construed as the Latin forms _tui_ and _mei_ would be in _oculorum mei_, and _viduæ mei_; viz.: as genitive cases. Now, whether a sufficient proportion of such constructions exist or not, they have not yet been brought forward. Such instances, even if quoted, would not be conclusive. § 405. Why would they not be conclusive? Because _even of the adjective there are uninflected forms_. As early as the Moeso-Gothic stage of our language, we find rudiments of this omission of the inflection. The possessive pronouns in the _neuter singular_ sometimes take the inflection, sometimes appear as crude forms, _nim thata badi theinata_ = [Greek: airon sou ton krabbaton] (Mark ii. 9), opposed to _nim thata badi thein_, two verses afterwards. So also with _mein_ and _meinata_. It is remarkable that this omission should begin with forms so marked as those of the neuter (-ata). It has, perhaps, its origin in the adverbial character of that gender. _Old High German._--Here the nominatives, both masculine and feminine, lose the inflection, whilst the neuter retains it--_thin dohter_, _sîn quenâ_, _min dohter_, _sinaz lîb_. In a few cases, when the pronoun comes after, even the _oblique_ cases drop the inflection. _Middle High German._--_Preceding_ the noun, the nominative of all genders is destitute of inflection; _sîn lîb_, _mîn ere_, _dîn lîb_, &c. _Following_ the nouns, the oblique cases do the same; _ine herse sîn_. The influence of position should here be noticed. Undoubtedly a place _after_ the substantive influences the omission of the inflection. This appears in its _maximum_ in the Middle High German. In Moeso-Gothic we have _mein leik_ and _leik meinata_. § 406. Now by assuming the extension of the Middle High German omission of the inflection to the Anglo-Saxon; and by supposing it to affect the words in question in _all_ positions (i.e., both before and after their nouns), we may explain the constructions in question, in case they occur. But, as already stated, no instances of them have been quoted. To suppose _two_ adjectival forms, one inflected (_min_, _minre_, &c.), and one uninflected, or common to all genders and both numbers (_min_), is to suppose no more than is the case with the uninflected _þe_, as compared with the inflected _þæt_. § 407. Hence, the evidence required in order to make a single instance of _min_ or _þin_, the _necessary_ equivalents to _mei_ and _tui_, rather than to _meus_ and _tuus_, must consist in the quotation from the Anglo-Saxon of some text, wherein _min_ or _þin_ occurs with a feminine substantive, in an _oblique_ case, the pronoun _preceding_ the noun. When this has been done, it will be time enough to treat _mine_ and _thine_ as the equivalents to _mei_ and _tui_, rather than as those to _meus_ and _tuus_. * * * * * CHAPTER XXXVIII. ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE WEAK PRÆTERITE. § 408. The remote origin of the weak præterite in -d or -t, has been considered by Grimm. He maintains that it is the d in _d-d_, the reduplicate præterite of _do_. In all the Gothic languages the termination of the past tense is either -da, -ta, -de, -ði, -d, -t, or -ed, for the singular, and -don, -ton, -tûmês, or -ðum, for the plural; in other words, d, or an allied sound, appears once, if not oftener. In the _plural_ præterite of the _Moeso-Gothic_, however, we have something more, viz., the termination _-dêdum_; as _nas-idêdum_, _nas-idêduþ_, _nas-idedun_, from _nas-ja_; _sôk-idêdum_, _sôk-idêduþ_, _sôk-idêdun_, from _sôk-ja_; _salb-ôdedum_, _salb-ôdêduþ_, _salb-ôdêdun_, from _salbô_. Here there is a second d. The same takes place with the dual form _salb-ôdêduts_, and with the subjunctive forms, _salb-ôdêdjan_, _salb-ôdêduts_, _salb-ôdedi_, _salb-ôdêdeits_, _salb-ôdêdeima_, _salb-ôdedeiþ_, _salb-ôdedina_. The English phrase, _we did salve_, as compared with _salb-ôdedum_, is confirmatory of this. § 409. Some remarks of Dr. Trithen's on the Slavonic præterite, in the "Transactions of the Philological Society," induce me to prefer a different doctrine, and to identify the -d in words like _moved_, &c., with the -t of the passive participles of the Latin language; as found in mon-it-us, voc-at-us, rap-t-us, and probably in Greek forms like [Greek: tuph-th-eis]. 1. The Slavonic præterite is commonly said to possess genders: in other words, there is one form for speaking of a past action when done by a male, and another for speaking of a past action when done by a female. 2. These forms are identical with those of the participles, masculine or feminine, as the case may be. Indeed the præterite is a participle. If, instead of saying _ille amavit_, the Latins said _ille amatus_, whilst, instead of saying _illa amavit_, they said _illa amata_, they would exactly use the grammar of the Slavonians. 3. Hence, as one class of languages, at least, gives us the undoubted fact of an active præterite being identical with a passive participle, and as the participle and præterite in question are nearly identical, we have a fair reason for believing that the d, in the English active præterite, is the d of the participle, which in its turn, is the t of the Latin passive participle. § 410. The following extract gives Dr. Trithen's remarks on the Slavonic verb in his own words:-- "A peculiarity which distinguishes the grammar of all the Slavish languages, consists in the use of the past participle, taken in an active sense, for the purpose of expressing the præterite. This participle generally ends in l; and much uncertainty prevails both as to its origin and its relations, though the termination has been compared by various philologists with similar affixes in the Sanscrit, and the classical languages. "In the Old Slavish, or the language of the church, there are three methods of expressing the past tense: one of them consists in the union of the verb substantive with the participle; as, _Rek esm'_ _chital esmi'_ _Rek esi'_ _chital esi'_ _Rek est'_ _chital est'_. "In the corresponding tense of the Slavonic dialect we have the verb substantive placed before the participle: _Ya sam imao_ _mi' smo imali_ _Ti si imao_ _vi' ste imali_ _On ye imao_ _omi su imali_. "In the Polish it appears as a suffix: _Czytalem_ _czytalismy_ _Czytales_ _czytaliscie_ _Czytal_ _czytalie_. "And in the Servian it follows the participle: _Igrao sam_ _igrali smo_ _Igrao si_ _igrali ste_ _Igrao ye_ _igrali su_. "The ending -ao, of _igrao_ and _imao_, stands for the Russian _al_, as in some English dialects a' is used for _all_." * * * * * PART V. SYNTAX. * * * * * CHAPTER I. ON SYNTAX IN GENERAL. § 411. The word _syntax_ is derived from the Greek _syn_ (_with_ or _together_) and _taxis_ (_arrangement_). It relates to the arrangement, or putting together, of words. Two or more words must be used before there can be any application of syntax. _There is to me a father._--Here we have a circumlocution equivalent to _I have a father_. In the English language the circumlocution is unnatural. In the Latin it is common. To determine this, is a matter of idiom rather than of syntax. § 412. In the English, as in all other languages, it is convenient to notice certain so-called figures of speech. They always furnish convenient modes of expression, and sometimes, as in the case of the one immediately about to be noticed, _account_ for facts. § 413. _Personification._--The ideas of apposition and collectiveness account for the apparent violations of the concord of number. The idea of personification applies to the concord of gender. A masculine or feminine gender, characteristic of persons, may be substituted for the neuter gender, characteristic of things. In this case the term is said to be personified. _The cities who aspired to liberty._--A personification of the idea expressed by cities is here necessary to justify the expression. _It_, the sign of the neuter gender, as applied to a male or female _child_, is the reverse of the process. § 414. _Ellipsis_ (from the Greek _elleipein_ = _to fall short_), or a _falling short_, occurs in sentences like _I sent to the bookseller's_. Here the word _shop_ or _house_ is understood. Expressions like _to go on all fours_, and _to eat of the fruit of the tree_, are reducible to ellipses. § 415. _Pleonasm_ (from the Greek _pleoazein_ = _to be in excess_) occurs in sentences like _the king, he reigns_. Here the word _he_ is superabundant. _My banks, they are furnished_,--_the most straitest sect_,--these are pleonastic expressions. In _the king, he reigns_, the word _king_ is in the same predicament as in _the king, God bless him_. The double negative, allowed in Greek and Anglo-Saxon, but not admissible in English, is pleonastic. The verb _do_, in _I do speak_, is _not_ pleonastic. In respect to the sense it adds intensity. In respect to the construction it is not in apposition, but in the same predicament with verbs like _must_ and _should_, as in _I must go_, &c. i.e., it is a verb followed by an infinitive. This we know from its power in those languages where the infinitive has a characteristic sign; as, in German, Die Augen _thaten_ ihm winken.--GOETHE. Besides this, _make_ is similarly used in Old English,--_But men make draw the branch thereof, and beren him to be graffed at Babyloyne._--Sir J. Mandeville. § 416. _The figure zeugma._--_They wear a garment like that of the Scythians, but a language peculiar to themselves._--The verb, naturally applying to _garment_ only, is here used to govern _language_. This is called in Greek, _zeugma_ (junction). § 417. _My paternal home was made desolate, and he himself was sacrificed._--The sense of this is plain; _he_ means _my father_. Yet no such substantive as _father_ has gone before. It is supplied, however, from the word _paternal_. The sense indicated by _paternal_ gives us a subject to which he can refer. In other words, the word _he_ is understood, according to what is indicated, rather than according to what is expressed. This figure in Greek is called _pros to semainomenon_ (_according to the thing indicated_). § 418.--_Apposition,_--_Cæsar, the Roman emperor, invades Britain._---Here the words _Roman emperor_ explain, or define, the word _Cæsar_; and the sentence, filled up, might stand, _Cæsar, 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 _Cæsar_. They constitute, not an additional idea, but an explanation of the original one. They are, as it were, _laid alongside_ (_appositi_) of the word _Cæsar_. Cases of doubtful number, wherein two substantives precede a verb, and wherein it is uncertain whether the verb should be singular or plural, are decided by determining whether the substantives be in apposition or the contrary. No matter how many nouns there may be, as long as it can be shown that they are in apposition, the verb is in the singular number. § 419. _Collectiveness as opposed to plurality._--In sentences like _the meeting _was_ large_, _the multitude _pursue_ pleasure_, _meeting_ and _multitude_ are each collective nouns; that is, although they present the idea of a single object, that object consists of a plurality of individuals. Hence, _pursue_ is put in the plural number. To say, however, _the meeting were large_ would sound improper. The number of the verb that shall accompany a collective noun depends upon whether the idea of the multiplicity of individuals, or that of the unity of the aggregate, shall predominate. _Sand and salt and a mass of iron _is_ easier to bear than a man without understanding._--Let _sand and salt and a mass of iron_ be dealt with as a series of things the aggregate of which forms a mixture, and the expression is allowable. _The king and the lords and commons _forms_ an excellent frame of government._--Here the expression is doubtful. Substitute _with_ for the first _and_, and there is no doubt as to the propriety of the singular form _is_. § 420. _The reduction of complex forms to simple ones._--Take, for instance, the current illustration, viz., _the-king-of-Saxony's army_.--Here the assertion is, not that the army belongs to _Saxony_, but that it belongs to the _king of Saxony_; which words must, for the sake of taking a true view of the construction, be dealt with as a single word in the possessive case. Here two cases are dealt with as one; and a complex term is treated as a single word. The same reason applies to phrases like _the two king Williams_. If we say the _two kings William_, we must account for the phrase by apposition. § 421. _True notion of the part of speech in use._--In _he is gone_, the word _gone_ must be considered as equivalent to _absent_; that is, as an adjective. Otherwise the expression is as incorrect as the expression _she is eloped_. Strong participles are adjectival oftener than weak ones: their form being common to many adjectives. _True notion of the original form._--In the phrase _I must speak_, the word _speak_ is an infinitive. In the phrase _I am forced to speak_, the word _speak_ is (in the present English) an infinitive also. In one case, however, it is preceded by _to_; whilst in the other, the particle _to_ is absent. The reason for this lies in the original difference of form. _Speak_ - _to_ = the Anglo-Saxon _sprécan_, a simple infinitive; _to speak_, or _speak_ + _to_ = the Anglo-Saxon _to sprécanne_, an infinitive in the dative case. § 422. _Convertibility._--In the English language, the greater part of the words may, as far as their form is concerned, be one part of speech as well as another. Thus the combinations _s-a-n-th_, or _f-r-e-n-k_, if they existed at all, might exist as either nouns or verbs, as either substantives or adjectives, as conjunctions, adverbs, or prepositions. This is not the case in the Greek languages. There, if a word be a substantive, it will probably end in -s; if an infinitive verb, in -ein, &c. The bearings of this difference between languages like the English and languages like the Greek will soon appear. At present, it is sufficient to say that a word, originally one part of speech (e.g., a noun), may become another (e.g., a verb). This may be called the convertibility of words. There is an etymological convertibility, and a syntactic convertibility; and although, in some cases, the line of demarcation is not easily drawn between them, the distinction is intelligible and convenient. § 423. _Etymological convertibility._--The words _then_ and _than_, now adverbs or conjunctions, were once cases: in other words, they have been converted from one part of speech to another. Or, they may even be said to be cases, at the present moment; although only in an historical point of view. For the practice of language, they are not only adverbs or conjunctions, but they are adverbs or conjunctions exclusively. § 424. _Syntactic convertibility._--The combination _to err_, is at this moment an infinitive verb. Nevertheless it can be used as the equivalent to the substantive _error_. _To err is human_ = _error is human_. Now this is an instance of syntactic conversion. Of the two meanings, there is no doubt as to which is the primary one; which primary meaning is part and parcel of the language at this moment. The infinitive, when used as a substantive, can be used in a singular form only. _To err_ = _error_; but we have no such form as _to errs_ = _errors_. Nor is it wanted. The infinitive, in a substantival sense, always conveys a general statement, so that even when singular, it has a plural power; just as _man is mortal_ = _men are mortal_. § 425. _The adjective used as a substantive._--Of these, we have examples in expressions like the _blacks of Africa_--_the bitters and sweets of life_--_all fours were put to the ground_. These are true instances of conversion, and are proved to be so by the fact of their taking a plural form. _Let the blind lead the blind_ is not an instance of conversion. The word _blind_ in both instances remains an adjective, and is shown to remain so by its being uninflected. § 426. _Uninflected parts of speech, used as substantive._--When King Richard III. says, _none of your ifs_, he uses the word _if_ as a substantive = _expressions of doubt_. So in the expression _one long now_, the word _now_ = _present time_. § 427. The convertibility of words in English is very great; and it is so because the structure of the language favours it. As few words have any peculiar signs expressive of their being particular parts of speech, interchange is easy, and conversion follows the logical association of ideas unimpeded. _The convertibility of words is in the inverse ratio to the amount of their inflection._ * * * * * CHAPTER II. SYNTAX OF SUBSTANTIVES. § 428. The phenomena of convertibility have been already explained. The remaining points connected with the syntax of substantives, are chiefly points of ellipsis. _Ellipsis of substantives._--The historical view of phrases, like _Rundell and Bridge's_, _St. Paul's_, &c., shows that this ellipsis is common to the English and the other Gothic languages. Furthermore, it shows that it is met with in languages not of the Gothic stock; and, finally, that the class of words to which it applies, is, there or thereabouts, the same generally. § 429. The following phrases are referable to a different class of relations-- 1. _Right and left_--supply _hand_. This is, probably, a real ellipsis. The words _right_ and _left_, have not yet become true substantives; inasmuch as they have no plural forms. In this respect they stand in contrast with _bitter_ and _sweet_; inasmuch as we can say _he has tasted both the bitters and sweets of life_. Nevertheless, the expression can be refined on. 2. _All fours_. _To go on all fours._ No ellipsis. The word _fours_ is a true substantive, as proved by its existence as a plural. * * * * * CHAPTER III. SYNTAX OF ADJECTIVES. § 430. _Pleonasm._--Pleonasm can take place with adjectives only in the expression of the degrees of comparison. Over and above the etymological signs of the comparative and superlative degrees, there may be used the superlative words _more_ and _most_. And this pleonasm really occurs-- _The _more serener_ spirit_. _The _most straitest_ sect_. These are instances of pleonasm in the strictest sense of the term. § 431. Collocation.--As a general rule, the adjective precedes the substantive--_a good man_, not _a man good_. When, however, the adjective is qualified by either the expression of its degree, or accompanied by another adjective, it may follow the substantive-- A man _just and good_. A woman _wise and fair_. A hero _devoted to his country_. A patriot _disinterested to a great degree_. _Single simple_ adjectives thus placed after their substantive, belong to the poetry of England, and especially to the ballad poetry--_sighs profound_--_the leaves green_. § 432. _Government._--The only adjective that governs a case, is the word _like_. In the expression, _this is like him_, &c., the original power of the dative remains. This we infer-- 1. From the fact that in most languages which have inflections to a sufficient extent, the word meaning _like_ governs a dative case. 2. That if ever we use in English any preposition at all to express similitude, it is the preposition _to_--_like to me_, _like to death_, &c. Expressions like _full of meat_, _good for John_, are by no means instances of the government of adjectives; the really governing words being the prepositions _to_ and _for_ respectively. § 433. The positive degree preceded by the adjective _more_, is equivalent to the comparative form--e.g., _more wise_ = _wiser_. The reasons for employing one expression in preference to the other, depend upon the nature of the particular word used. When the word is at one and the same time of Anglo-Saxon origin and monosyllabic, there is no doubt about the preference to be given to the form in -er. Thus, _wis-er_ is preferable to _more wise_. When, however, the word is compound, or trisyllabic, the combination with the word _more_, is preferable. _more fruitful_ _fruitfuller_. _more villainous_ _villainouser_. Between these two extremes there are several intermediate forms, wherein the use of one rather than another will depend upon the taste of the writer. The question, however, is a question of euphony, rather than of aught else. It is also illustrated by the principle of not multiplying secondary elements. In such a word as _fruit-full-er_, there are two additions to the root. The same is the case with the superlative, _fruit-full-est_. § 434. In the Chapter on the Comparative Degree is indicated a refinement upon the current notions as to the power of the comparative degree, and reasons are given for believing that the fundamental notion expressed by the comparative inflexion is the idea of comparison or contrast between _two_ objects. In this case, it is better in speaking of only two objects to use the comparative degree rather than the superlative--even when we use the definite article _the_. Thus-- This is _the better_ of the two is preferable to This is _the best_ of the two. This principle is capable of an application more extensive than our habits of speaking and writing will verify. Thus to go to other parts of speech, we should logically say-- Whether of the two, rather than Which of the two. Either the father or the son, but not Either the father, the son, or the daughter. This statement may be refined on. It is chiefly made for the sake of giving fresh prominence to the idea of duality, expressed by the terminations -er and -ter. § 435. The absence of inflection simplifies the syntax of adjectives. Violations of concord are impossible. We could not make an adjective disagree with its substantive if we wished. * * * * * CHAPTER IV. SYNTAX OF PRONOUNS. § 436. _Pleonasm in the syntax of pronouns._--In the following sentences the words in italics are pleonastic: 1. The king _he_ is just. 2. I saw _her_, the queen. 3. The _men_, they were there. 4. The king, _his_ crown. Of these forms, the first is more common than the second and third, and the fourth more common than the first. § 437. The fourth has another element of importance. It has given rise to the absurd notion that the genitive case in -'s (_father-'s_) is a contraction from _his_ (_father his_). To say nothing about the inapplicability of this rule to feminine genders, and plural numbers, the whole history of the Indo-Germanic languages is against it. 1. We cannot reduce _the queen's majesty_ to _the queen his majesty_. 2. We cannot reduce _the children's bread_ to _the children his bread_. 3. The Anglo-Saxon forms are in -es, not in _his_. 4. The word _his_ itself must be accounted for; and that cannot be done by assuming it to be _he_ + _his_. 5. The -s in _father's_ is the -is in _patris_, and the [Greek: -os] in [Greek: pateros]. § 438. The preceding examples illustrate an apparent paradox, viz., the fact of pleonasm and ellipsis being closely allied. _The king he is just_, dealt with as a _single_ sentence, is undoubtedly pleonastic. But it is not necessary to be considered as a mere simple sentence. _The king_--may represent a first sentence incomplete, whilst _he is just_ represents a second sentence in full. What is pleonasm in a single sentence is ellipsis in a double one. * * * * * CHAPTER V. THE TRUE PERSONAL PRONOUNS. § 439. _Personal pronouns._--The use of the second person plural instead of the second singular has been noticed already. This use of one number for another is current throughout the Gothic languages. A pronoun so used is conveniently called the _pronomen reverentiæ_. § 440. _Dativus ethicus._--In the phrase Rob me the exchequer,--_Henry IV._, the _me_ is expletive, and is equivalent to _for me_. This expletive use of the dative is conveniently called the _dativus ethicus_. § 441. _The reflected personal pronoun._--In the English language there is no equivalent to the Latin _se_, the German _sich_, and the Scandinavian _sik_, and _sig_. It follows from this that the word _self_ is used to a greater extent than would otherwise be the case. _I strike me_ is awkward, but not ambiguous. _Thou strikest thee_ is awkward, but not ambiguous. _He strikes him_ is ambiguous; inasmuch as _him_ may mean either the _person who strikes_ or some one else. In order to be clear we add the word _self_ when the idea is reflective. _He strikes himself_ is, at once idiomatic and unequivocal. So it is with the plural persons. _We strike us_ is awkward, but not ambiguous. _Ye strike you_ is the same. _They strike them_ is ambiguous. This shows the value of a reflective pronoun for the third person. As a general rule, therefore, whenever we use a verb reflectively we use the word _self_ in combination with the personal pronoun. Yet this was not always the case. The use of the simple personal pronoun was current in Anglo-Saxon, and that, not only for the first two persons, but for the third as well. The exceptions to this rule are either poetical expressions, or imperative moods. He sat _him_ down at a pillar's base.--BYRON. Sit thee down. § 442. _Reflective neuters._--In the phrase _I strike me_, the verb _strike_ is transitive; in other words, the word _me_ expresses the object of an action, and the meaning is different from the meaning of the simple expression _I strike_. In the phrase _I fear me_ (used by Lord Campbell in his lives of the Chancellors), the verb _fear_ is intransitive or neuter; in other words, the word _me_ (unless, indeed, _fear_ mean _terrify_), expresses no object of any action at all; whilst the meaning is the same as in the simple expression _I fear_. Here the reflective pronoun appears out of place, i.e., after a neuter or intransitive verb. Such a use, however, is but the fragment of an extensive system of reflective verbs thus formed, developed in different degrees in the different Gothic languages; but in all more than in the English. § 443. _Equivocal reflectives._--The proper place of the reflective is _after_ the verb. The proper place of the governing pronoun is, in the indicative and subjunctive moods, _before_ the verb. Hence in expressions like the preceding there is no doubt as to the power of the pronoun. The imperative mood, however, sometimes presents a complication. Here the governing person may follow the verb. _Mount ye_ = either _be mounted_, or _mount yourselves_. In phrases like this, and in phrases _Busk ye, busk ye_, my bonny, bonny bride, _Busk ye, busk ye_, my winsome marrow, the construction is ambiguous. _Ye_ may either be a nominative case governing the verb _busk_, or an accusative case governed by it. This is an instance of what may be called the _equivocal reflective_. * * * * * CHAPTER VI. ON THE SYNTAX OF THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS, AND THE PRONOUNS OF THE THIRD PERSON. § 444. As _his_ and _her_ are genitive cases (and not adjectives), there is no need of explaining such combinations as _his mother_, _her father_, inasmuch as no concord of gender is expected. The expressions are respectively equivalent to _mater ejus_, not _mater sua_; _pater ejus_, -- _pater suus_. § 445. It has been stated that _its_ is a secondary genitive, and it may be added, that it is of late origin in the language. The Anglo-Saxon form was _his_, the genitive of _he_ for the neuter and masculine equally. Hence, when, in the old writers, we meet _his_, where we expect _its_, we must not suppose that any personification takes place, but simply that the old genitive common to the two genders is used in preference to the modern one limited to the neuter, and irregularly formed. The following instances are the latest specimens of its use: "The apoplexy is, as I take it, a kind of lethargy. I have read the cause of _his_ effects in Galen; _it_ is a kind of deafness."--_2 Henry IV._ i. 2. "If the salt have lost _his_ savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned? _It_ is neither fit for the land, nor yet for the dunghill; but men cast _it_ out."--_Luke_ xiv. 35. "Some affirm that every plant has _his_ particular fly or caterpillar, which it breeds and feeds."--WALTON'S _Angler_. "This rule is not so general, but that _it_ admitteth of _his_ exceptions."--CAREW. * * * * * CHAPTER VII. ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORD SELF. § 446. The undoubted constructions of the word _self_, in the present state of the cultivated English, are threefold. 1. _Government._--In _my-self_, _thy-self_, _our-selves_, and _your-selves_, the construction is that of a common substantive with an adjective or genitive case. _My-self_ = _my individuality_, and is similarly construed--_mea individualitas_ (or _persona_), or _mei individualitas_ (or _persona_). 2. _Apposition._--In _him-self_ and _them-selves_, when accusative, the construction is that of a substantive in apposition with a pronoun. _Himself_ = _him_, _the individual_. 3. _Composition._--It is only, however, when _himself_ and _themselves_, are in the _accusative_ case, that the construction is appositional. When they are used as _nominatives_, it must be explained on another principle. In phrases like _He himself_ was present _They themselves_ were present, there is neither apposition nor government; _him_ and _them_, being neither related to _my_ and _thy_, so as to be governed, nor yet to _he_ and _they_, so as to form an apposition. In order to come under one of these conditions, the phrases should be either _he his self_ (_they their selves_), or else _he he self_ (_they they selves_). In this difficulty, the only logical view that can be taken of the matter, is to consider the words _himself_ and _themselves_, not as two words, but as a single word compounded; and even then, the compound will be of an irregular kind; inasmuch as the inflectional element -m is dealt with as part and parcel of the root. § 447. _Her-self_.--The construction here is ambiguous. It is one of the preceding constructions. Which, however it is, is uncertain; since _her_ may be either a so-called genitive, like _my_, or an accusative like _him_. _Itself_--is also ambiguous. The s may represent the -s in _its_, as well as the s- in _self_. This inconsistency is as old as the Anglo-Saxon stage of the English language. * * * * * CHAPTER VIII. ON THE POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. § 448. The possessive pronouns fall into two classes. The first contains the forms like _my_ and _thy_, &c. the second, those like _mine_ and _thine_, &c. _My_, _thy_, _his_ (as in _his book_), _her_, _its_ (as in _its book_), _our_, _your_, _their_, are conveniently considered as the equivalents to the Latin forms _mei_, _tui_, _ejus_, _nostrum_, _vestrum_, _eorum_. _Mine_, _thine_, _his_ (as in _the book is his_), _hers_, _ours_, _yours_, _theirs_ are conveniently considered as the equivalents to the Latin forms _meus_, _mea_, _meum_; _tuus_, _tua_, _tuum_; _suus_, _sua_, _suum_; _noster_, _nostra_, _nostrum_; _vester_, _vestra_, _vestrum_. § 449. There is a difference between the construction of _my_ and _mine_. We cannot say _this is mine hat_, and we cannot say _this hat is my_. Nevertheless, this difference is not explained by any change of construction from that of adjectives to that of cases. As far as the syntax is concerned the construction of _my_ and _mine_ is equally that of an adjective _agreeing_ with a substantive, and of a genitive (or possessive) case _governed_ by a substantive. Now a common genitive case can be used in two ways; either as part of a term, or as a whole term (i.e., absolutely).--1. As part of a term--_this is John's hat_. 2. As a whole term--_this hat is John's_. And a common adjective can be used in two ways; either as part of a term, or as a whole term (i.e. absolutely).--1. As part of a term--_these are good hats_. 2. As a whole term--_these hats are good_. Now whether we consider _my_, and the words like it, as adjectives or cases, they possess only _one_ of the properties just illustrated, i.e., they can only be used as part of a term--_this is my hat_; not _this hat is my_. And whether we consider _mine_, and the words like it, as adjectives or cases, they possess only _one_ of the properties just illustrated, i.e., they can only be used as whole terms, or absolutely--_this hat is mine_; not _this is mine hat_. For a full and perfect construction whether of an adjective or a genitive case, the possessive pronouns present the phenomenon of being, singly, incomplete, but, nevertheless, complementary to each other when taken in their two forms. § 450. In the absolute construction of a genitive case, the term is formed by the single word, only so far as the _expression_ is concerned. A substantive is always _understood_ from what has preceded.--_This discovery is Newton's_ = _this discovery is Newton's discovery_. The same with adjectives.--_This weather is fine_ = _this weather is fine weather_. And the same with absolute pronouns.--_This hat is mine_ = _this hat is my hat_; and _this is a hat of mine_ = _this is a hat of my hats_. § 451. In respect to all matters of syntax considered exclusively, it is so thoroughly a matter of indifference whether a word be an adjective or a genitive case that Wallis considers the forms in -'s, like _father's_, not as genitive cases but as adjectives. Looking to the logic of the question alone he is right, and looking to the practical syntax of the question he is right also. He is only wrong on the etymological side of the question. "Nomina substantiva apud nos nullum vel generum vel casuum discrimen sortiuntur."--p. 76. "Duo sunt adjectivorum genera, a substantivis immediate descendentia, quæ semper substantivis suis præponuntur. Primum quidem adjectivum possessivum libet appellare. Fit autem a quovis substantivo, sive singulari sive plurali, addito -s.--Ut _man's nature_, _the nature of man_, natura humana vel hominis; _men's nature_, natura humana vel hominum; _Virgil's poems_, _the poems of Virgil_, poemata Virgilii vel Virgiliana."--p. 89. * * * * * CHAPTER IX. THE RELATIVE PRONOUNS. § 452. It is necessary that the relative be in the same _gender_ as the antecedent--_the man who_--_the woman who_--_the thing which_. § 453. It is necessary that the relative be in the same _number_ with the antecedent. § 454. It is _not_ necessary for the relative to be in the same _case_ with its antecedent. 1. John, _who_ trusts me, comes here. 2. John, _whom_ I trust, comes here. 3. John, _whose_ confidence I possess, comes here. 4. I trust John _who_ trusts me. § 455. The reason why the relative must agree with its antecedent in both number and gender, whilst it need not agree with it in case, is found in the following observations. 1. All sentences containing a relative contain two verbs--_John who_ (1) _trusts me_ (2) _comes here_. 2. Two verbs express two actions--(1) _trust_ (2) _come_. 3. Whilst, however, the actions are two in number, the person or thing which does or suffers them is single--_John_. 4. _He_ (_she_ or _it_) is single _ex vi termini_. The relative expresses the _identity_ between the subjects (or objects) of the two actions. Thus _who_ = _John_, or is another name for John. 5. Things and persons that are one and the same, are of one and the same gender. The _John_ who _trusts_ is necessarily of the same gender with the _John_ who _comes_. 6. Things and persons that are one and the same, are of one and the same number. The number of _Johns_ who _trust_, is the same as the number of _Johns_ who _come_. Both these elements of concord are immutable. 7. But a third element of concord is not immutable. The person or thing that is an agent in the one part of the sentence, may be the object of an action in the other. The _John_ whom I _trust_ may _trust_ me also. Hence a. I trust John--_John_ the object. b. John trusts me--_John_ the agent. § 456. As the relative is only the antecedent in another form, it may change its case according to the construction. 1. I trust John--(2) _John_ trusts me. 2. I trust John--(2) _He_ trusts me. 3. I trust John--(2) _Who_ trusts me. 4. John trusts me--(2) I trust _John_. 5. John trusts me--(2) I trust _him_. 6. John trusts me--(2) I trust _whom_. 7. John trusts me--(2) _Whom_ I trust. 8. John--(2) _Whom_ I trust trusts me. § 457. _The books I want are here_.--This is a specimen of a true ellipsis. In all such phrases in _full_, there are _three_ essential elements. 1. The first proposition; as _the books are here_. 2. The second proposition; as _I want_. 3. The word which connects the two propositions, and without which, they naturally make separate, independent, unconnected statements. Now, although true and unequivocal ellipses are scarce, the preceding is one of the most unequivocal kind--the word which connects the two propositions being wanting. § 458. _When there are two words in a clause, each capable of being an antecedent, the relative refers to the latter._ 1. _Solomon the son of David that slew Goliah_.--This is unexceptionable. 2. _Solomon the son of David who built the temple_.--This is exceptionable. Nevertheless, it is defensible, on the supposition that _Solomon-the-son-of-David_ is a single many-worded name. * * * * * CHAPTER X. ON THE INTERROGATIVE PRONOUN. § 459. Questions are of two sorts, direct and oblique. _Direct._--Who is he? _Oblique._--Who do you say that he is? All difficulties about the cases of the interrogative pronoun may be determined by framing an answer, and observing the case of the word with which the interrogative coincides. Whatever be the case of this word will also be the case of the interrogative. DIRECT. _Qu._ _Who_ is this?--_Ans._ _I._ _Qu._ _Whose_ is this?--_Ans._ _His._ _Qu._ _Whom_ do you seek?--_Ans._ _Him._ OBLIQUE. _Qu._ _Who_ do you say that it is?--_Ans._ _He._ _Qu._ _Whose_ do you say that it is?--_Ans._ _His._ _Qu._ _Whom_ do you say that they seek?--_Ans._ _Him._ _Note._--The answer should always be made by means of a pronoun, as by so doing we distinguish the accusative case from the nominative. _Note._--And, if necessary, it should be made in full. Thus the full answer to _whom do you say that they seek?_ is, _I say that they seek him._ § 460. Nevertheless, such expressions as _whom do they say that it is?_ are common, especially in oblique questions. "And he axed him and seide, _whom_ seien the people that I am?--Thei answereden and seiden, Jon Baptist--and he seide to hem, But _whom_ seien ye that I am?"--WICLIF, _Luke_ ix. "Tell me in sadness _whom_ she is you love."--_Romeo and Juliet_, i, 1. "And as John fulfilled his course, he said, _whom_ think ye that I am?"--_Acts_ xiii. 25. This confusion, however, is exceptionable. * * * * * CHAPTER XI. THE RECIPROCAL CONSTRUCTION. § 461. In all sentences containing the statement of a reciprocal or mutual action there are in reality two assertions, viz., the assertion that A. _strikes_ (or _loves_) B., and the assertion that B. _strikes_ (or _loves_) A.; the action forming one, the reaction another. Hence, if the expressions exactly coincided with the fact signified, there would always be two propositions. This, however, is not the habit of language. Hence arises a more compendious form of expression, giving origin to an ellipsis of a peculiar kind. Phrases like _Eteocles and Polynices killed each other_ are elliptical, for _Eteocles and Polynices killed--each the other_. Here the second proposition expands and explains the first, whilst the first supplies the verb to the second. Each, however, is elliptic. § 462. This is the syntax. As to the power of the words _each_ and _one_ in the expression (_each other_ and _one another_), I am not prepared to say that in the common practice of the English language there is any distinction between them. A distinction, however, if it existed, would give strength to our language. Where two persons performed a reciprocal action on another, the expression might be _one another_; as _Eteocles and Polynices killed one another_. Where more than two persons were engaged on each side of a reciprocal action, the expression might be _each other_; as, _the ten champions praised each other_. This amount of perspicuity is attained, by different processes, in the French, Spanish, and Scandinavian languages. 1. French.--_Ils_ (i.e., A. and B.) _se battaient--l'un l'autre._ _Ils_ (A. B. C.) _se battaient--les uns les autres._ In Spanish, _uno otro_ = _l'un l'autre_, and _unos otros_ = _les uns les autres_. 2. Danish.--_Hin_ander = the French _l'un l'autre_; whilst _hverandre_ = _les uns les autres_. * * * * * CHAPTER XII. THE INDETERMINATE PRONOUNS. § 463. Different nations have different methods of expressing indeterminate propositions. Sometimes it is by the use of the passive voice. This is the common method in Latin and Greek, and is also current in English--_dicitur_, [Greek: legetai], _it is said_. Sometimes the verb is reflective--_si dice_ = _it says itself_, Italian. Sometimes the plural pronoun of the third person is used. This also is an English locution--_they say_ = _the world at large says_. Finally, the use of some word = _man_ is a common indeterminate expression. The word _man_ has an indeterminate sense in the Modern German; as _man sagt_ = _they say_. The word _man_ was also used indeterminately in the Old English, although it is not so used in the Modern. In the Old English, the form _man_ often lost the -n, and became _me_.--"Deutsche Grammatik." This form is also extinct. § 464. The present indeterminate pronoun is _one_; as _one says_ = _they say_ = _it is said_ = _man sagt_, German = _on dit_, French = _si dice_, Italian. It has been stated, that the indeterminate pronoun _one_ has no etymological connection with the numeral _one_; but that it is derived from the French _on_ = _homme_ = _homo_ = _man_; and that it has replaced the Old English _man_ or _me_. § 465. Two other pronouns, or, to speak more in accordance with the present habit of the English language, one pronoun, and one adverb of pronominal origin, are also used indeterminately, viz., _it_ and _there_. § 466. _It_ can be either the subject or the predicate of a sentence,--_it is this_, _this is it_, _I am it_, _it is I_. When _it_ is the subject of a proposition, the verb necessarily agrees with it, and can be of the singular number only; no matter what be the number of the predicate--_it is this_, _it is these_. When _it_ is the predicate of a proposition, the number of the verb depends upon the number of the subject. These points of universal syntax are mentioned here for the sake of illustrating some anomalous forms. § 467. _There_ can only be the predicate of a subject. It differs from _it_ in this respect. It follows also that it must differ from _it_ in never affecting the number of the verb. This is determined by the nature of the subject--_there is this_, _there are these_. When we say _there is these_, the analogy between the words _these_ and _it_ misleads us; the expression being illogical. Furthermore, although a predicate, _there_ always stands in the beginning of propositions, i.e., in the place of the subject. This also misleads. § 468. Although _it_, when the subject, being itself singular, absolutely requires that its verb should be singular also, there is a tendency to use it incorrectly, and to treat it as a plural. Thus, in German, when the predicate is plural, the verb joined to the singular form _es_ ( = _it_) is plural--_es sind menschen_, literally translated = _it are men_; which, though bad English, is good German. * * * * * CHAPTER XIII. THE ARTICLES. § 469. The rule of most practical importance about the articles is the rule that determines when the article shall be repeated as often as there is a fresh substantive, and when it shall not. When two or more substantives following each other denote the same object, the article precedes the first only. We say, _the secretary and treasurer_ (or, _a secretary and treasurer_), when the two offices are held by one person. When two or more substantives following each other denote different objects, the article is repeated, and precedes each. We say, _the_ (or _a_) _secretary and the_ (or _a_) _treasurer_, when the two offices are held by different persons. This rule is much neglected. * * * * * CHAPTER XIV. THE NUMERALS. § 470. The numeral _one_ is naturally single. All the rest are naturally plural. Nevertheless such expressions--_one two_ ( = _one collection of two_), _two threes_ ( = _two collections of three_) are legitimate. These are so, because the sense of the word is changed. We may talk of several _ones_ just as we may talk of several _aces_; and of _one two_ just as of _one pair_. Expressions like _the thousand-and-first_ are incorrect. They mean neither one thing nor another: 1001st being expressed by _the thousand-and-first_, and 1000th + 1st being expressed by _the thousandth and the first_. Here it may be noticed that, although I never found it to do so, the word _odd_ is capable of taking an ordinal form. The _thousand-and-odd-th_ is as good an expression as the _thousand-and-eight-th_. The construction of phrases like the _thousand-and-first_ is the same construction as we find in the _king of Saxony's army_. § 471. It is by no means a matter of indifference whether we say the _two first_ or the _first two_. The captains of two different classes at school should be called the _two first boys_. The first and second boys of the same class should be called the _first two boys_. I believe that when this rule is attended to, more is due to the printer than to the author: such, at least, is the case with myself. * * * * * CHAPTER XV. ON VERBS IN GENERAL. § 472. For the purposes of syntax it is necessary to divide verbs into the five following divisions: transitive, intransitive, auxiliary, substantive, and impersonal. _Transitive verbs._--In transitive verbs the action is never a simple action. It always affects some object or other,--_I move my limbs_; _I strike my enemy_. The presence of a transitive verb implies also the presence of a noun; which noun is the name of the object affected. A transitive verb, unaccompanied by a noun, either expressed or understood, is a contradiction in terms. The absence of the nouns, in and of itself, makes it intransitive. _I move_ means, simply, _I am in a state of moving_. _I strike_ means, simply, _I am in the act of striking_. Verbs like _move_ and _strike_ are naturally transitive. _Intransitive verbs._--An act may take place, and yet no object be affected by it. _To hunger_, _to thirst_, _to sleep_, _to wake_, are verbs that indicate states of being, rather than actions affecting objects. Verbs like _hunger_ and _sleep_ are naturally intransitive. Many verbs, naturally transitive, may be used as intransitive,--e.g., _I move_, _I strike_, &c. Many verbs, naturally intransitive, may be used as transitives,--e.g., _I walked the horse_ = _I made the horse walk_. This variation in the use of one and the same verb is of much importance in the question of the government of verbs. A. Transitive verbs are naturally followed by some noun or other; and that noun is _always_ the name of something affected by them _as an object_. B. Intransitive verbs are not naturally followed by any noun at all; and when they are so followed, the noun is _never_ the name of anything affected by them _as an object_. Nevertheless, intransitive verbs may be followed by nouns denoting the manner, degree, or instrumentality of their action,--_I walk with my feet_ = _incedo pedibus_. § 473. _The auxiliary verbs_ will be noticed fully in Chapter XXIII. § 474. The verb _substantive_ has this peculiarity, viz., that for all purposes of syntax it is no verb at all. _I speak_ may, logically, be reduced to _I am speaking_; in which case it is only the _part_ of a verb. Etymologically, indeed, the verb substantive is a verb; inasmuch as it is inflected as such: but for the purposes of construction, it is a copula only, i.e., it merely denotes the agreement or disagreement between the subject and the predicate. For the _impersonal_ verbs see Chapter XXI. * * * * * CHAPTER XVI. THE CONCORD OF VERBS. § 475. The verb must agree with its subject in person, _I walk_, not _I walks_: _he walks_, not _he walk_. It must also agree with it in number,--_we walk_, not _we walks_: _he walks_, not _he walk_. Clear as these rules are, they require some expansion before they become sufficient to solve all the doubtful points of English syntax connected with the concord of the verb. A. _It is I, your master, who command you_. Query? would _it is I, your master, who commands you_, be correct? This is an example of a disputed point of concord in respect to the person of the verb. B. _The wages of sin is death_. Query? would _the wages of sin _are_ death_ be correct? This is an example of a disputed point of concord in respect to the number of the verb. § 476. In respect to the concord of person the following rules will carry us through a portion of the difficulties. _Rule._--In sentences where there is but one proposition, when a noun and a pronoun of different persons are in apposition, the verb agrees with the first of them,--_I, your master, command you_ (not _commands_): _your master, I, commands you_ (not _command_). To understand the nature of the difficulty, it is necessary to remember that subjects may be extremely complex as well as perfectly simple; and that a complex subject may contain, at one and the same time, a noun substantive and a pronoun,--_I, the keeper_; _he, the merchant_, &c. Now all noun-substantives are naturally of the third person--_John speaks_, _the men run_, _the commander gives orders_. Consequently the verb is of the third person also. But the pronoun with which such a noun-substantive may be placed in apposition, may be a pronoun of either person, the first or second: _I_ or _thou_--_I the commander_--_thou the commander_.--In this case the construction requires consideration. With which does the verb agree? with the substantive which requires a third person? or with the pronoun which requires a first or second? Undoubtedly the idea which comes first is the leading idea; and, undoubtedly, the idea which explains, qualifies, or defines it, is the subordinate idea: and, undoubtedly, it is the leading idea which determines the construction of the verb. We may illustrate this from the analogy of a similar construction in respect to number--_a man with a horse and a gig meets me on the road_. Here the ideas are three; nevertheless the verb is singular. No addition of subordinate elements interferes with the construction that is determined by the leading idea. In the expression _I, your master_, the ideas are two; viz., the idea expressed by _I_, and the idea expressed by _master_. Nevertheless, as the one only explains or defines the other, the construction is the same as if the idea were single. _Your master, I_, is in the same condition. The general statement is made concerning the _master_, and it is intended to say what _he_ does. The word _I_ merely defines the expression by stating who the master is. Of the two expressions the latter is the awkwardest. The construction, however, is the same for both. From the analysis of the structure of complex subjects of the kind in question, combined with a rule concerning the position of the subject, which will soon be laid down, I believe that, for all single propositions, the foregoing rule is absolute. _Rule._--In all single propositions the verb agrees in person with the noun (whether substantive or pronoun) which comes first. § 477. But the expression _it is I your master, who command_ (or _commands_) you, is not a single proposition. It is a sentence containing two propositions. 1. _It is I._ 2. _Who commands you._ Here the word _master_ is, so to say, undistributed. It may belong to either clause of the sentence, i.e., the whole sentence may be divided into Either--_it is I your master_-- Or--_your master who commands you_. This is the first point to observe. The next is that the verb in the second clause (_command_ or _commands_) is governed, not by either the personal pronoun or the substantive, but by the relative, i.e., in the particular case before us, not by either _I_ or _master_, but by _who_. And this brings us to the following question--with which of the two antecedents does the _relative_ agree? with _I_ or with _master_? This may be answered by the two following rules;-- _Rule 1._--When the two antecedents are in the same proposition, the relative agrees with the first. Thus-- 1. It is _I_ your _master_-- 2. Who _command_ you. _Rule 2._--When the two antecedents are in different propositions, the relative agrees with the second. Thus-- 1. It is _I_-- 2. Your _master_ who _commands_ you. This, however, is not all. What determines whether the two antecedents shall be in the same or in different propositions? I believe that the following rules for what may be called _the distribution of the substantive antecedent_ will bear criticism. _Rule 1._ That when there is any natural connection between the substantive antecedent and the verb governed by the relative, the antecedent belongs to the second clause. Thus, in the expression just quoted, the word _master_ is logically connected with the word _command_; and this fact makes the expression, _It is I your master who commands you_ the better of the two. _Rule 2._ That when there is no natural connection between the substantive antecedent and the verb governed by the relative, the antecedent belongs to the first clause. _It is I, John, who command_ (not _commands_) _you_. To recapitulate, the train of reasoning has been as follows:-- 1. The person of the second verb is the person of the relative. 2. The person of the relative is that of one of two antecedents. 3. Of such two antecedents the relative agrees with the one which stands in the same proposition with itself. 4. Which position is determined by the connection or want of connection between the substantive antecedent and the verb governed by the relative. Respecting the person of the verb in the _first_ proposition of a complex sentence there is no doubt. _I, your master, who commands you to make haste, am_ (not _is_) _in a hurry._ Here, _I am in a hurry_ is the first proposition; _who commands you to make haste_, the second. It is not difficult to see why the construction of sentences consisting of two propositions is open to an amount of latitude which is not admissible in the construction of single propositions. As long as the different parts of a complex idea are contained within the limits of a single proposition, their subordinate character is easily discerned. When, however, they amount to whole propositions, they take the appearance of being independent members of the sentence. § 478. _The concord of number._--It is believed that the following three rules will carry us through all difficulties of the kind just exhibited. _Rule 1._ That the verb agrees with the subject, and with nothing but the subject. The only way to justify such an expression as _the wages of sin is death_, is to consider _death_ not as the subject, but as the predicate; in other words, to consider the construction to be, _death is the wages of sin_. _Rule 2._ That, except in the case of the word _there_, the word which comes first is generally the subject. _Rule 3._ That no number of connected singular nouns can govern a plural verb, unless they be connected by a copulative conjunction. _The sun _and_ moon shine_,--_the sun _in conjunction with_ the moon shines_. § 479. _Plural subjects with singular predicates._--- The wages of sin _are_ death.--Honest men _are_ the salt of the earth. _Singular subjects with plural predicates._--These constructions are rarer than the preceding: inasmuch as two or more persons (or things) are oftener spoken of as being equivalent to one, than one person (or thing) is spoken of as being equivalent to two or more. Sixpence _is_ twelve halfpennies. He _is_ all head and shoulders. Vulnera totus _erat_. Tu _es_ deliciæ meæ. [Greek: Hektor, atar su moi essi patêr kai potnia mêtêr,] [Greek: Êde kasignêtos, su de moi thaleros parakoitês.] * * * * * CHAPTER XVII. ON THE GOVERNMENT OF VERBS. § 480. The government of verbs is of two sorts, (1.) _objective_, and (2.) _modal_. It is objective where the noun which follows the verb is the name of some object affected by the action of the verb,--as _he strikes me_; _he wounds the enemy_. It is modal when the noun which follows the verb is not the name of any object affected by the verb, but the name of some object explaining the manner in which the action of the verb takes place, the instrument with which it is done, the end for which it is done, &c. The government of all transitive verbs is necessarily objective. It may also be modal,--_I strike the enemy with the sword_ = _ferio hostem gladio_. The government of all intransitive verbs can only be modal,--_I walk with the stick_. When we say, _I walk the horse_, the word _walk_ has changed its meaning, and signifies _make to walk_, and is, by the very fact of its being followed by the name of an object, converted from an intransitive into a transitive verb. The modal construction may also be called the _adverbial construction_; because the effect of the noun is akin to that of an adverb,--_I fight with bravery_ = _I fight bravely_: _he walks a king_ = _he walks regally_. The modal (or adverbial) construction, sometimes takes the appearance of the objective: inasmuch as intransitive verbs are frequently followed by a substantive, e.g., _to sleep the sleep of the righteous_. Here, nevertheless, this is no proof of government. For a verb to be capable of governing an objective case, it must be a verb signifying an action affecting an object; which is not the case here. The sentence means, to _sleep as the righteous sleep_, or _according to the sleep of the righteous_. * * * * * CHAPTER XVIII. ON THE PARTICIPLES. § 481. The present participle, or the participle in -ing, must be considered in respect to its relations with the substantive in -ing. _Dying-day_ is, probably, no more a participle than _morning-walk_. In respect to the syntax of such expressions as the forthcoming, I consider that they are _either_ participles or substantives. 1. When substantives, they are in regimen, and govern a genitive case--_What is the meaning of the lady's holding up her train?_ Here the word _holding_ = _the act of holding_.--_Quid est significatio elevationis pallæ de parte foeminæ._ 2. When participles, they are in apposition or concord, and would, if inflected, appear in the same case with the substantive, or pronoun, preceding them--_What is the meaning of the lady holding up her train?_ Here the word _holding_ = _in the act of holding_, and answers to the Latin _foeminæ elevantis_.--_Quid est significatio foeminæ elevantis pallam?_ § 482. The past participle corresponds not with the Greek form [Greek: tuptomenos], but with the form [Greek: tetummenos]. _I am beaten_ is essentially a combination, expressive not of present but of past time, just like the Latin _sum verberatus_. Its Greek equivalent is not [Greek: eimi tuptomenos] = _I am a man in the act of being beaten_, but [Greek: eimi tetummenos] = _I am a man who has been beaten_. It is past in respect to the action, though present in respect to the state brought about by the action. This essentially past element in the so-called present expression, _I am beaten_, will be again referred to. * * * * * CHAPTER XIX. ON THE MOODS. § 483. The infinitive mood is a noun. The current rule that _when two verbs come together the latter is placed in the infinitive mood_, means that one verb can govern another only by converting it into a noun--_I begin to move_ = _I begin the act of moving_. Verbs, _as verbs_, can only come together in the way of apposition--_I irritate_, _I beat_, _I talk at him_, _I call him names_, &c. § 484. The construction, however, of English infinitives is two fold. (1.) Objective. (2.) Gerundial. When one verb is followed by another without the preposition _to_, the construction must be considered to have grown out of the objective case, or from the form in -an. Such is the case with the following words, and, probably, with others: I may go, _not_ I may _to_ go. I might go, -- I might _to_ go. I can move, -- I can _to_ move. I could move, -- I could _to_ move. I will speak, -- I will _to_ speak. I would speak, -- I would _to_ speak. I shall wait, -- I shall _to_ wait. I should wait, -- I should _to_ wait. Let me go, -- Let me _to_ go. He let me go, -- He let me _to_ go. I do speak, -- I do _to_ speak. I did speak, -- I did _to_ speak. I dare go, -- I dare _to_ go. I durst go, -- I durst _to_ go. This, in the present English, is the rarer of the two constructions. When a verb is followed by another, preceded by the preposition _to_, the construction must be considered to have grown out of the so-called gerund, i.e., the form in -nne, i.e., the dative case--_I begin to move_. This is the case with the great majority of English verbs. § 485. _Imperatives_ have three peculiarities. (1.) They can only, in English, be used in the second person--_go thou on_, _get you gone_, &c.: (2.) They take pronouns after, instead of before them: (3.) They often omit the pronoun altogether. * * * * * CHAPTER XX. ON THE TENSES. § 486. Notwithstanding its name, the present tense in English does not express a strictly _present_ action. It rather expresses an habitual one. _He speaks well_ = _he is a good speaker_. If a man means to say that he is in the act of speaking, he says _I am speaking_. It has also, especially when combined with a subjunctive mood, a future power--_I beat you_ ( = _I will beat you_) _if you don't leave off_. § 487. The English præterite is the equivalent, not to the Greek perfect but the Greek aorist. _I beat_ = [Greek: etupsa] not [Greek: tetupha]. The true perfect is expressed, in English, by the auxiliary _have_ + the past participle. * * * * * CHAPTER XXI. SYNTAX OF THE PERSONS OF VERBS. § 488. _The concord of persons._--A difficulty that occurs frequently in the Latin language is rare in English. In expressions like _ego et ille_ followed by a verb, there arises a question as to the person in which that verb should be used. Is it to be in the first person in order to agree with _ego_, or in the _third_ in order to agree with _ille_? For the sake of laying down a rule upon these and similar points, the classical grammarians arrange the persons (as they do the genders) according to their _dignity_, making the verb (or adjective if it be a question of gender) agree with the most _worthy_. In respect to persons, the first is more worthy than the second, and the second more worthy than the third. Hence, the Latins said-- _Ego_ et _Balbus_ _sustulimus_ manus. _Tu_ et _Balbus_ _sustulistis_ manus. Now, in English, the plural form is the same for all three persons. Hence we say _I and you are friends_, _you and I are friends_, _I and he are friends_, &c., so that for the practice of language, the question as to the relative dignity of the three persons is a matter of indifference. Nevertheless, it _may_ occur even in English. Whenever two or more pronouns of different persons, and of the _singular_ number, follow each other _disjunctively_, the question of concord arises. _I or you_,--_you or he_,--_he or I_. I believe that, in these cases, the rule is as follows:-- 1. Whenever the words _either_ or _neither_ precede the pronouns, the verb is in the third person. _Either you or I is in the wrong_; _neither you nor I is in the wrong_. 2. Whenever the disjunctive is simple (i.e. unaccompanied with the word _either_ or _neither_) the verb agrees with the _first_ of the two pronouns. _I_ (or _he_) _am_ in the wrong. _He_ (or _I_) _is_ in the wrong. _Thou_ (or _he_) _art_ in the wrong. _He_ (or _thou_) _is_ in the wrong. Now, provided that they are correct, it is clear that the English language knows nothing about the relative degrees of dignity between these three pronouns; since its habit is to make the verb agree with the one which is placed first--whatever may be the person. I am strongly inclined to believe that the same is the case in Latin; in which case (in the sentence _ego et Balbus sustulimus manus_) _sustulimus_ agrees, in person, with _ego_, not because the first person is the worthiest, but because it comes first in the proposition, § 489. In the Chapter on the Impersonal Verbs, it is stated that the construction of _me-thinks_ is peculiar. This is because in Anglo-Saxon the word _þincan_ = _seem_. Hence _me-thinks_ is [Greek: phainetai moi], or _mihi videtur_, and _me_ is a _dative_ case, not an _accusative_. The _þencan_ = _think_, was, in Anglo-Saxon, a different word. * * * * * CHAPTER XXII. ON THE VOICES OF VERBS. § 490. In English there is neither a passive nor a middle voice. The following couplet from Dryden's "Mac Flecnoe" exhibits a construction which requires explanation:-- An ancient fabric, raised to inform the sight, There stood of yore, and Barbican _it hight_. Here the word _hight_ = _was called_, and seems to present an instance of the participle being used in a passive sense without the so-called verb substantive. Yet it does no such thing. The word is no participle at all; but a simple preterite. Certain verbs are _naturally_ either passive or active, as one of two allied meanings may predominate. _To be called_ is passive; so is, _to be beaten_. But, _to bear as a name_ is active; so is, _to take a beating_. The word, _hight_, is of the same class of verbs with the Latin _vapulo_; and it is the same as the Latin word, _cluo_.--_Barbican cluit_ = _Barbican audivit_ = _Barbican it hight_. * * * * * CHAPTER XXIII. ON THE AUXILIARY VERBS. § 491. The auxiliary verbs, in English, play a most important part in the syntax of the language. They may be classified upon a variety of principles. The following, however, are all that need here be applied. A. _Classification of auxiliaries according to their inflection or non-inflectional powers._--Inflectional auxiliaries are those that may either replace or be replaced by an inflection. Thus--_I am struck_ = the Latin _ferior_, and the Greek [Greek: tuptomai]. These auxiliaries are in the same relation to verbs that prepositions are to nouns. The inflectional auxiliaries are,-- 1. _Have_; equivalent to an inflection in the way of tense--_I have bitten_ = _mo-mordi_. 2. _Shall_; ditto. _I shall call_ = _voc-abo_. 3. _Will_; ditto. _I will call_ = _voc-abo_. 4. _May_; equivalent to an inflection in the way of mood. _I am come that I may see_ = _venio ut vid-eam_. 5. _Be_; equivalent to an inflection in the way of voice. _To be beaten_ = _verberari_, [Greek: tuptesthai]. 6. _Am_, _art_, _is_, _are_; ditto. Also equivalent to an inflection in the way of tense. _I am moving_ = _move-o_. 7. _Was_, _were_; ditto, ditto. _I was beaten_ = [Greek: e-tuphthên]. _I was moving_ = _move-bam_. _Do_, _can_, _must_, and _let_, are non-inflectional auxiliaries. B. _Classification of auxiliaries according to their non-auxiliary significations._--The power of the word _have_ in the combination of _I have a horse_ is clear enough. It means possession. The power of the same word in the combination _I have been_ is not so clear; nevertheless it is a power which has grown out of the idea of possession. This shows that the power of a verb as an auxiliary may be a modification of its original power; i.e., of the power it has in non-auxiliary constructions. Sometimes the difference is very little: the word _let_, in _let us go_, has its natural sense of permission unimpaired. Sometimes it is lost altogether. _Can_ and _may_ exist only as auxiliaries. 1. Auxiliary derived from the idea of possession--_have_. 2. Auxiliaries derived from the idea of existence--_be_, _is_, _was_. 3. Auxiliary derived from the idea of future destination, dependent upon circumstances external to the agent--_shall_. There are etymological reasons for believing that _shall_ is no present tense, but a perfect. 4. Auxiliary derived from the idea of future destination, dependent upon the volition of the agent--_will_. _Shall_ is simply predictive; _will_ is predictive and promissive as well. 5. Auxiliary derived from the idea of power, dependent upon circumstances external to the agent--_may_. 6. Auxiliary derived from the idea of power, dependent upon circumstances internal to the agent--_can_. _May_ is simply permissive; _can_ is potential. In respect to the idea of power residing in the agent being the cause which determines a contingent action, _can_ is in the same relation to _may_ as _will_ is to _shall_. "_May_ et _can_, cum eorum præteritis 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 præterito dicitur _must_ (quasi ex _must'd_ seu _must't_ contractum). Sic, si de præterito dicatur, _he must_ (seu _must't_) _be burnt_, oportebat uri seu necesse habuit ut ureretur."--WALLIS, 107. 9. Auxiliary derived from the idea of action--_do_. C. _Classification of auxiliary verbs in respect to their mode of construction._--Auxiliary verbs combine with others in three ways. 1. _With participles._--a) With the present, or active, participle--_I am speaking_: b) With the past, or passive, participle--_I am beaten_, _I have beaten_. 2. _With infinitives._--a) With the objective infinitive--_I can speak_: b) With the gerundial infinitive--_I have to speak_. 3. _With both infinitives and participles._--_I shall have done_, _I mean to have done_. D. _Auxiliary verbs may be classified according to their effect._--Thus--_have_ makes the combination in which it appears equivalent to a tense; _be_ to a passive form; _may_ to a sign of mood, &c. This sketch of the different lights under which auxiliary verbs may be viewed, has been written for the sake of illustrating, rather than exhausting, the subject. § 492. The combination of the auxiliary, _have_, with the past participle requires notice. It is, here, advisable to make the following classifications. 1. The combination with the participle of a _transitive verb._--_I have ridden the horse_; _thou hast broken the sword_; _he has smitten the enemy_. 2. The combination with the participle of an _intransitive_ verb,--_I have waited_; _thou hast hungered_; _he has slept_. 3. The combination with the participle of the verb substantive, _I have been_; _thou hast been_; _he has been_. It is by examples of the first of these three divisions that the true construction is to be shown. For an object of any sort to be in the possession of a person, it must previously have existed. If I possess a horse, that horse must have had a previous existence. Hence, in all expressions like _I have ridden a horse_, there are two ideas, a past idea in the participle, and a present idea in the word denoting possession. For an object of any sort, affected in a particular manner, to be in the possession of a person, it must previously have been affected in the manner required. If I possess a horse that has been ridden, the riding must have taken place before I mention the fact of the ridden horse being in my possession; inasmuch as I speak of it as a thing already done,--the participle, _ridden_, being in the past tense. _I have ridden a horse_ = _I have a horse ridden_ = _I have a horse as a ridden horse_, or (changing the gender and dealing with the word _horse_ as a thing) _I have a horse as a ridden thing_. In this case the syntax is of the usual sort. (1) _Have_ = _own_ = _habeo_ = _teneo_; (2) _horse_ is the accusative case _equum_; (3) _ridden_ is a past participle agreeing either with _horse_, or _with a word in apposition with it understood_. Mark the words in italics. The word _ridden_ does not agree with _horse_, since it is of the neuter gender. Neither if we said _I have ridden the horses_, would it agree with _horses_; since it is of the singular number. The true construction is arrived at by supplying the word _thing_. _I have a horse as a ridden thing_ = _habeo equum equitatum_ (neuter). Here the construction is the same as _triste lupus stabulis_. _I have horses as a ridden thing_ = _habeo equos equitatum_ (singular, neuter). Here the construction is-- "Triste ... maturis frugibus imbres, Arboribus venti, nobis Amaryllidos iræ." or in Greek-- [Greek: Deinon gunaixin hai di' ôdinôn 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_. Quæ cum ita sint, satis de Cæsare hoc _dictum habeo_. The combination of _have_ with an intransitive verb is irreducible to the idea of possession: indeed, it is illogical. In _I have waited_, we cannot make the idea expressed by the word _waited_ the object of the verb _have_ or _possess_. The expression has become a part of language by means of the extension of a false analogy. It is an instance of an illegitimate imitation. The combination of _have_ with _been_ is more illogical still, and is a stronger instance of the influence of an illegitimate imitation. In German and Italian, where even _intransitive_ verbs are combined with the equivalents to the English _have_ (_haben_, and _avere_), the verb substantive is not so combined; on the contrary, the combinations are Italian; _io sono stato_ = _I am been_. German; _ich bin gewesen_ = _ditto_. which is logical. § 493. _I am to speak_.--Three facts explain this idiom. 1. The idea of _direction towards an object_ conveyed by the dative case, and by combinations equivalent to it. 2. The extent to which the ideas of necessity, obligation, or intention are connected with the idea of _something that has to be done_, or _something towards which some action has a tendency_. 3. The fact that expressions like the one in question historically represent an original dative case, or its equivalent; since _to speak_ grows out of the Anglo-Saxon form _to sprecanne_, which, although called a gerund, is really a dative case of the infinitive mood. When Johnson thought that, in the phrase _he is to blame_, the word _blame_ was a noun, if he meant a noun in the way that _culpa_ is a noun, his view was wrong. But if he meant a noun in the way that _culpare_, _ad culpandum_, are nouns, it was right. § 494. _I am to blame_.--This idiom is one degree more complex than the previous one; since _I am to blame_ = _I am to be blamed_. As early, however, as the Anglo-Saxon period the gerunds were liable to be used in a passive sense: _he is to lufigenne_ = not _he is to love_, but _he is to be loved_. The principle of this confusion may be discovered by considering that _an object to be blamed_, is _an object for some one to blame_, _an object to be loved_ is _an object for some one to love_. § 495. _I am beaten_.--This is a present combination, and it is present on the strength of the verb _am_, not on the strength of the participle _beaten_, which is præterite. 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 blïft ghegheven, waert, blêf ghegeven. _New Dutch_ wordt gegeven, es gegeven worden. _Old Frisian_ werth ejeven, is ejeven. _Anglo-Saxon_ weorded gifen, is gifen. _English_ is given, has been given. _Old Norse_ er gefinn, hefr verit gefinn. _Swedish_ gifves, har varit gifven. _Danish_ bliver, vorder given, har varet given. "Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 19." * * * * * CHAPTER XXIV. THE SYNTAX OF ADVERBS. § 496. The syntax of the adverb is simpler than that of any other part of speech, excepting, perhaps, that of the adjective. Adverbs have no concord. Neither have they any government. They _seem_, indeed, to have it, when they are in the comparative or superlative degree; but it is merely apparent. In _this is better than that_, the word _that_ is governed neither by _better_ nor by _than_. It is not governed at all. It is a nominative case; the subject of a separate proposition. _This is better (i.e., more good) than that is good._ Even if we admit such an expression as _he is stronger than me_ to be good English, there is no adverbial government. _Than_, if it govern _me_ at all, governs it as a preposition. The position of an adverb is, in respect to matters of syntax, pre-eminently parenthetic; i.e., it may be omitted without injuring the construction. _He is fighting--now; he was fighting--then; he fights--bravely; I am almost--tired_, &c. § 497. By referring to the Chapter on the Adverbs, we shall find that the neuter adjective is frequently converted into an adverb by deflection. As any neuter adjective may be so deflected, we may justify such expressions as _full_ (for _fully_) as _conspicuous_ (for _conspicuously_), and _peculiar_ (for _peculiarly_) _bad grace_, &c. We are not, however, bound to imitate everything that we can justify. § 498. The termination -ly was originally adjectival. At present it is a derivational syllable by which we can convert an adjective into an adverb: _brave, brave-ly_. When, however, the adjective ends in -ly already, the formation is awkward. _I eat my daily bread_ is unexceptionable English; _I eat my bread daily_ is exceptionable. One of two things must here take place: the two syllables ly are packed into one (the full expression being _dai-li-ly_), or else the construction is that of a neuter adjective deflected. Adverbs are convertible. _The then men_ = [Greek: hoi nun brotoi], &c. This will be seen more clearly in the Chapter on Conjunctions. § 499. It has been remarked that in expressions like _he sleeps the sleep of the righteous_, the construction is adverbial. So it is in expressions like _he walked a mile, it weighs a pound_. The ideas expressed by _mile_ and _pound_ are not the names of anything that serves as either object or instrument to the verb. They only denote the _manner_ of the action, and define the meaning of the verb. § 500. _From whence_, _from thence_.--This is an expression which, if it have not taken root in our language, is likely to do so. It is an instance of excess of expression in the way of syntax; the -ce denoting direction _from_ a place, and the preposition doing the same. It is not so important to determine what this construction _is_, as to suggest what it is _not_. It is _not_ an instance of an adverb governed by a preposition. If the two words be dealt with as logically separate, _whence_ (or _thence_) must be a noun = _which place_ (or _that place_); just as _from then till now_ = _from that time to this_. But if (which is the better view) the two words be dealt with as one (i.e., as an improper compound) the preposition _from_ has lost its natural power, and become the element of an adverb. * * * * * CHAPTER XXV. ON PREPOSITIONS. § 501. All prepositions govern an oblique case. If a word ceases to do this, it ceases to be a preposition. In the first of the two following sentences the word _up_ is a preposition, in the second an adverb. 1. _I climbed up the tree._ 2. _I climbed up._ All prepositions in English, precede the noun which they govern. _I climbed up the tree_, never _I climbed the tree up_. This is a matter not of government, but of collocation. It is the case in most languages; and, from the frequency of its occurrence, the term _pre-position_ (or _pre-fix_) has originated. Nevertheless, it is by no means a philological necessity. In many languages the prepositions are_ post-positive_, following their noun. § 502. No preposition, in the present English, governs a genitive case. This remark is made, because expressions like the _part of the body = pars corporis,--a piece of the bread = portio panis_, make it appear as if the preposition _of_ did so. The true expression is, that the preposition _of_ followed by an objective case is equivalent in many instances, to the genitive case of the classical languages. * * * * * CHAPTER XXVI. ON CONJUNCTIONS. § 503. A conjunction is a part of speech which connects _propositions_,--_the day is bright_, is one proposition. _The sun shines_, is another. _The day is bright_ because _the sun shines_ is a pair of propositions connected by the conjunction, _because_. From this it follows, that whenever there is a conjunction, there are two subjects, two copulas, and two predicates: i.e., two propositions in all their parts. But this may be expressed compendiously. _The sun shines, and the moon shines_ may be expressed by the _sun and moon shine_. Nevertheless, however compendious may be the expression, there are always two propositions wherever there is one conjunction. A part of speech that merely combines two words is a preposition,--_the sun along with the moon shines_. It is highly important to remember that conjunctions connect propositions. It is also highly important to remember that many double propositions may be expressed so compendiously as to look like one. When this takes place, and any question arises as to the construction, they must be exhibited in their fully expanded form, i.e., the second subject, the second predicate, and the second copula must be supplied. This can always be done from the first proposition,--_he likes you better than me_ = _he likes you better than he likes me_. The compendious expression of the second proposition is the first point of note in the syntax of conjunctions. § 504. The second point in the syntax of conjunctions is the fact of their great convertibility. Most conjunctions have been developed out of some other part of speech. The conjunction of comparison, _than_, is derived from the adverb of time, _then_: which is derived from the accusative singular of the demonstrative pronoun. The conjunction, _that_, is derived also from a demonstrative pronoun. The conjunction, _therefore_, is a demonstrative pronoun + a preposition. The conjunction, _because_, is a substantive governed by a preposition. One and the same word, in one and the same sentence, may be a conjunction or preposition, as the case may be. _All fled but John_.--If this mean _all fled_ except _John_, the word _but_ is a preposition, the word _John_ is an accusative case, and the proposition is single. If instead of _John_, we had a personal pronoun, we should say _all fled but_ him. _All fled but John_.--If this mean _all fled but John did not fly_, the word _but_ is a conjunction, the word _John_ is a nominative case, and the propositions are two in number. If, instead of _John_, we had a personal pronoun, we should say, _all fled but_ he. From the fact of the great convertibility of conjunctions it is often necessary to determine whether a word be a conjunction or not. _If it be a conjunction, it cannot govern a case. If it govern a case it is no conjunction but a preposition._ A conjunction cannot govern a case, for the following reasons,--the word that follows it _must_ be the subject of the second proposition, and as such, a nominative case. § 505. The third point to determine in the syntax of conjunctions is the certainty or uncertainty in the mind of the speaker as to the facts expressed by the propositions which they serve to connect. 1. Each proposition may contain a certain, definite, absolute fact--_the day is clear_ because _the sun shines_. Here there is neither doubt nor contingency of either the _day being clear_, or of the _sun shining_. Of two propositions one may be the condition of the other--_the day will be clear_ if _the sun shine_. Here, although it is certain that _if the sun shine the day will be clear_, there is no certainty of _the sun shining_. Of the two propositions one only embodies a certain fact, and that is certain only conditionally. Now an action, wherein there enters any notion of uncertainty, or indefinitude, and is at the same time connected with another action, is expressed, not by the indicative mood, but by the subjunctive. _If the sun_ shine (not _shines_) _the day will be clear._ Simple uncertainty will not constitute a subjunctive construction,--_I am_, perhaps, _in the wrong_. Neither will simple connection.--_I am wrong_, because _you are right_. But, the two combined constitute the construction in question,--_if I _be_ wrong, you are right_. Now, a conjunction that connects two certain propositions may be said to govern an indicative mood. And a conjunction that connects an uncertain proposition with a certain one, may be said to govern a subjunctive mood. _The government of mood is the only form of government of which conjunctions are capable._ § 506. Previous to the question of the government of conjunctions in the way of mood, it is necessary to notice certain points of agreement between them and the relative pronouns; inasmuch as, in many cases, the relative pronoun exerts the same government, in the way of determining the mood of the verb, as the conjunction. Between the relative pronouns and conjunctions in general there is this point of connection,--both join propositions. Wherever there is a relative, there is a second proposition. So there is wherever there is a conjunction. Between certain relative pronouns and those particular conjunctions that govern a subjunctive mood there is also a point of connection. Both suggest an element of uncertainty or indefinitude. This the relative pronouns do, through the logical elements common to them and to the interrogatives: these latter essentially suggesting the idea of doubt. Wherever the person, or thing, connected with an action, and expressed by a relative is indefinite, there is room for the use of a subjunctive mood. Thus--"he that troubled you shall bear his judgment, _whosoever_ he _be_." § 507. By considering the nature of such words as _when_, their origin as relatives on the one hand, and their conjunctional character on the other hand, we are prepared for finding a relative element in words like _till_, _until_, _before_, _as long as_, &c. These can all be expanded into expressions like _until the time when_, _during the time when_, &c. Hence, in an expression like _seek out his wickedness till thou_ find (not _findest_) _none_, the principle of the construction is nearly the same as in _he that troubled you_, &c., or _vice versâ_.[64] § 508. In most conditional expressions the subjunctive mood should follow the conjunction. All the following expressions are conditional. 1. _Except_ I _be_ by Silvia in the night, There is no music in the nightingale.--SHAKSPEARE. 2. Let us go and sacrifice to the Lord our God, _lest_ he _fall_ upon us with pestilence.--_Old Testament._ 3. ----Revenge back on itself recoils. Let it. I reck not, _so_ it _light_ well aimed.--J. MILTON. 4. _If_ this _be_ the case. 5. _Although_ my house _be_ not so with God.--_Old Testament._ 6. He shall not eat of the holy thing _unless_ he _wash_ his flesh with water.--_Old Testament._ Expressions like _except_ and _unless_ are equally conditional with words like _if_ and _provided that_, since they are equivalent to _if--not_. Expressions like _though_ and _although_ are peculiar. They join propositions, of which the one is a _primâ facie_ reason against the existence of the other: and this is the conditional element. In the sentence, _if the children be so badly brought-up, they are not to be trusted_, the _bad bringing-up_ is the reason for their being _unfit to be trusted_; and, as far as the expression is concerned, _is admitted to be so_. The only uncertainty lies in the question as to the degree of the badness of the education. The inference from it is unequivocal. But if, instead of saying _if_, we say _although_, and omit the word _not_, so that the sentence run _although the children be so badly brought-up they are to be trusted_, we do two things: we indicate the general relation of cause and effect that exists between _bad bringing-up_ and _unfitness for being trusted_, but we also, at the same time, take an exception to it in the particular instance before us. These remarks have been made for the sake of showing the extent to which words like _though_, &c., are conditional. It must be remembered, however, that conjunctions, like the ones lately quoted, do not govern subjunctive moods because they are conditional, but because, in the particular condition which they accompany, there is an element of uncertainty. § 509. This introduces a fresh question. Conditional conjunctions are of two sorts:-- 1. Those which express a condition as an actual fact, and one admitted as such by the speaker. 2. Those which express a condition as a possible fact, and one which the speaker either does not admit, or admits only in a qualified manner. Since _the children_ are _so badly brought-up_, &c.--This is an instance of the first construction. The speaker admits as an actual fact the _bad bringing-up of the children_. If _the children_ be _so badly brought-up_, &c.--This is an instance of the second construction. The speaker admits as a possible (perhaps, as a probable) fact the _bad bringing-up of the children_: but he does not adopt it as an indubitable one. § 510. Now, if every conjunction had a fixed unvariable meaning, there would be no difficulty in determining whether a condition was absolute, and beyond doubt, or possible, and liable to doubt. But such is not the case. _Although_ may precede a proposition which is admitted as well as one which is doubted. a. Although _the children_ are, &c. b. Although _the children_ be, &c. _If_, too, may precede propositions wherein there is no doubt whatever implied: in other words it may be used instead of _since_. In some languages this interchange goes farther than in others; in the Greek, for instance, such is the case with [Greek: ei], to a very great extent indeed. Hence we must look to the meaning of the sentence in general, rather than to the particular conjunction used. It is a philological fact that _if_ may stand instead of _since_. It is also a philological fact that when it does so it should be followed by the indicative mood. This is written in the way of illustration. What applies to _if_ applies to other conjunctions as well. § 511. As a point of practice, the following method of determining the amount of doubt expressed in a conditional proposition is useful:-- Insert, immediately after the conjunction, one of the two following phrases,--(1.) _as is the case_; (2.) _as may or may not be the case_. By ascertaining which of these two supplements expresses the meaning of the speaker, we ascertain the mood of the verb which follows. When the first formula is the one required, there is no element of doubt, and the verb should be in the indicative mood. _If_ (_as is the case_), _he _is_ gone, I must follow him_. When the second formula is the one required, there _is_ an element of doubt, and the verb should be in the subjunctive mood. _If_ (_as may or may not be the case_) _he _be_ gone, I must follow him_. § 512. The use of the word _that_ in expressions like _I eat that I may live_, &c., is a modification of the subjunctive construction, that is conveniently called _potential_. It denotes that one act is done for the sake of supplying the _power_ or opportunity for the performance of another. The most important point connected with the powers of _that_ is the so-called _succession of tenses_. § 513. _The succession of tenses._--Whenever the conjunction _that_ expresses intention, and consequently connects two verbs, the second of which takes place _after_ the first, the verbs in question must be in the same tense. I _do_ this _that_ I _may_ gain by it I _did_ this _that_ I _might_ gain by it. In the Greek language this is expressed by a difference of mood; the subjunctive being the construction equivalent to _may_, the optative to _might_. The Latin idiom coincides with the English. A little consideration will show that this rule is absolute. For a man _to be doing_ one action (in present time) in order that some other action may _follow_ it (in past time) is to reverse the order of cause and effect. To do anything in A.D. 1851, that something may result from it in 1850 is a contradiction; and so it is to say _I _do_ this_ that _I _might_ gain by it_. The reasons against the converse construction are nearly, if not equally cogent. To have done anything at any _previous_ time in order that a _present_ effect may follow, is, _ipso facto_, to convert a past act into a present one, or, to speak in the language of the grammarian, to convert an aorist into a perfect. To say _I _did_ this_ that _I may gain by it_, is to make, by the very effect of the expression, either _may_ equivalent to _might_, or _did_ equivalent to _have done_. _I _did_ this_ that _I _might_ gain_. _I _have done_ this_ that _I _may_ gain_. § 514. _Disjunctives._--Disjunctives (_or_, _nor_) are of two sorts, real and nominal. _A king or queen always rules in England_. Here the disjunction is real; _king_ or _queen_ being different names for different objects. In all _real_ disjunctions the inference is, that if one out of two (or more) individuals (or classes) do not perform a certain action, the other does. _A sovereign or supreme ruler always rules in England_. Here the disjunction is nominal; _sovereign_ and _supreme governor_ being different names for the same object. In all nominal disjunctives the inference is, that if an agent (or agents) do not perform a certain action under one name, he does (or they do) it under another. Nominal disjunctives are called by Harris _sub_disjunctives. In the English language there is no separate word to distinguish the nominal from the real disjunctive. In Latin, _vel_ is considered by Harris to be disjunctive, _sive_ subdisjunctive. As a periphrasis, the combination _in other words_ is subdisjunctive. Both nominal and real disjunctives agree in this,--whatever may be the number of nouns which they connect, the construction of the verb is the same as if there were but one--Henry, _or_ John, _or_ Thomas, _walks_ (not _walk_); the sun, _or_ solar luminary, _shines_ (not _shine_). The disjunctive _isolates_ the subject, however much it may be placed in juxtaposition with other nouns. * * * * * CHAPTER XXVII. THE SYNTAX OF THE NEGATIVE. § 515. When the verb is in the infinitive mood, the negative precedes it.--_Not to advance is to retreat_. When the verb is not in the infinitive mood, the negative follows it.--_He advanced not_. _I cannot_. This rule is absolute. It only _seems_ to precede the verb in such expressions as _I do not advance_, _I cannot advance_, _I have not advanced_, &c. However, the words _do_, _can_, and _have_, are no infinitives; and it consequently follows them. The word _advance_ is an infinitive, and it consequently precedes it. Wallis's rule makes an equivalent statement, although differently. "Adverbium negandi _not_ (non) verbo postponitur (nempe auxiliari primo si adsit; aut si non adsit auxiliare, verbo principali): aliis tamen orationis partibus præfigi solet."--P. 113. That the negative is rarely used, except with an auxiliary, in other words, that the presence of a negative converts a simple form like _it burneth not_ into the circumlocution it _does not burn_, is a fact in the practice of the English language. The syntax is the same in either expression. § 516. What may be called the _distribution_ of the negative is pretty regular in English. Thus, when the word _not_ comes between an indicative, imperative, or subjunctive mood and an infinitive verb, it almost always is taken with the word which it _follows_--_I can not eat_ may mean either _I can--not eat_ (i.e., _I can abstain_), or _I can not--eat_ (i.e., _I am unable to eat_); but, as stated above, it _almost_ always has the latter signification. But not _always_. In Byron's "Deformed Transformed" we find the following lines:-- Clay! not dead but soulless, Though no mortal man would choose thee, An immortal no less Deigns _not to refuse_ thee. Here _not to refuse_ = _to accept;_ and is probably a Grecism. _To not refuse_ would, perhaps, be better. The next expression is still more foreign to the English idiom:-- For _not_ to have been dipped in Lethe's lake _Could save_ the son of Thetis from to die. Here _not_ is to be taken with _could_. § 517. In the present English, two negatives make an affirmative. _I have not not seen him_ = _I have seen him_. In Greek this was not the case. _Duæ aut plures negativæ apud Græcos 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_. § 518. _Questions of appeal._--All questions imply want of information; want of information may then imply doubt; doubt, perplexity; and perplexity the absence of an alternative. In this way, what are called, by Mr. Arnold,[65] _questions of appeal_, are, practically speaking, negatives. _What should I do?_ when asked in extreme perplexity, means that nothing can well be done. In the following passage we have the presence of a question instead of a negative:-- Or hear'st thou (_cluis_, Lat.) rather pure ethereal stream, Whose fountain who (_no one_) shall tell?--_Paradise Lost._ * * * * * CHAPTER XXVIII. ON THE CASE ABSOLUTE. § 519. Broadly speaking, all adverbial constructions are absolute. The term, however, is conveniently limited to a particular combination of the noun, verb, and participle. When two actions are connected with each other, either by the fact of their simultaneous occurrence, or as cause and effect, they may be expressed within the limits of a single proposition, by expressing the one by means of a verb, and the other by means of a noun and participle agreeing with each other. _The door being open, the horse was stolen._ Considering the nature of the connection between the two actions, we find good grounds for expecting _à priori_ that the participle will be in the instrumental case, when such exists in the language: and when not, in some case allied to it, i.e., the ablative or dative. In Latin the ablative is the case that is used absolutely. _Sole orto, claruit dies._ In Anglo-Saxon the absolute case was the dative. This is logical. In the present English, however, the nominative is the absolute case. _He made the best proverbs, him alone excepted_, is an expression of Tillotson's. We should now write _he alone excepted_. The present mode of expression is only to be justified by considering the nominative form to be a dative one, just as in the expression _you are here_, the word _you_, although an accusative, is considered as a nominative. A real nominative absolute is as illogical as a real accusative case governing a verb. * * * * * PART VI. PROSODY. § 520. The word _Prosody_ is derived from a Greek word (_prosodia_) signifying _accent_. It is used by Latin and English grammarians in a wider sense, and includes not only the doctrines of accent and quantity, but also the laws of metre and versification. § 521. Observe the accents in the following lines:-- Then fáre thee wéll, mine ówn dear lóve, The wórld hath nów for ús No greáter griéf, no paín abóve The paín of párting thús.--MOORE. Here the syllables accented are the 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 10th, 12th, 14th, 16th, 18th, 20th, 22nd, 24th, 26th, 28th; that is, every other syllable.--Again, At the clóse of the dáy, when the hámlet is stíll, And the mórtals the sweéts of forgétfulness próve, And when nóught but the tórrent is heárd on the híll, And there's nóught but the níghtingale's sóng in the gróve.--BEATTIE. Here the syllables accented are the 3rd, 6th, 9th, 12th, 15th, 18th, 21st, 24th, 27th, 30th, 33rd, 36th, 39th, 42nd, 45th, 48th; that is, every third syllable. § 522. _Metre is a general term for the recurrence within certain intervals of syllables similarly affected._ The syllables that have just been numbered are similarly affected, being similarly accented. Accent is not the only quality of a syllable, which by returning at regular intervals can constitute metre. It is the one, however, upon which English metre depends. English metre essentially consists in the regular recurrence of syllables similarly _accented_. _Abbot._--And whý not líve and áct with óther mén? _Manfred._--Becaúse my náture wás avérse from lífe; And yét not crúel, fór I woúld not máke, But fínd a désolátion:--líke the wínd, The réd-hot breáth of thé most lóne simoóm, Which dwélls but ín the désert, ánd sweeps o'ér The bárren sánds which beár no shrúbs to blást, And révels ó'er their wíld and árid wáves, And seéketh nót so thát it ís not soúght, But béing mét is deádly: súch hath beén The páth of mý exístence.--BYRON. § 523. _Measures._--For every accented syllable in the following line, write the letter a, and for every unaccented one, the letter x, so that a may stand for an accent, x for the absence of one-- The wáy was lóng, the wínd was cóld.--SCOTT. or expressed symbolically x a x a x a x a, where x coincides with _the_, a with _way_, &c. § 524. Determine the length of the line in question.--It is plain that this may be done in two ways. We may either measure by the syllables, and say that the line consists of eight syllables; or by the accents, and say that it consists of four accents. In this latter case we take the accented syllable with its corresponding unaccented one, and, grouping the two together, deal with the pair at once. Now, a group of syllables thus taken together is called a _measure_. In the line in question _the way_ (x a) is one measure, _was long_ (x a) another, and so on throughout; the line itself consisting of four measures. § 525. _Trisyllabic measures._--The number of measures consisting of two syllables, or dissyllabic measures, is necessarily limited to two, expressed a x and x a respectively. But beyond these there are in the English language measures of three syllables, or trisyllabic measures. The number of these is necessarily limited to three. The first of these is exhibited in the word _mérrily_ (a x x). Mérrily, mérrily sháll I live nów, Únder the blóssom that hángs on the boúgh.--SHAKSPEARE. The second is exhibited by the word _disáble_ (x a x). But vaínly thou wárrest, For thís is alóne in Thy pówer to decláre, That ín the dim fórest Thou heárd'st a low moáning, And sáw'st a bright lády surpássingly faír.--COLERIDGE. § 526. The third is exhibited by the word _cavaliér_ (x x a). There's a beaúty for éver unfádingly bríght, Like the lóng ruddy lápse of a súmmer-day's níght.--MOORE. When grouped together according to certain rules, measures form lines and verses; and lines and verses, regularly arranged, constitute couplets, triplets, and stanzas, &c. § 527. The expression of measures, lines, &c., by such symbols as a x, x a, &c., is _metrical notation_. § 528. _Rhyme._--We can have English verse without _rhyme_. We cannot have English verse without _accent_. Hence accent is an _essential_; rhyme an _accessory_ to metre. § 529. _Analysis of a pair of rhyming syllables._--Let the syllables _told_ and _bold_ be taken to pieces, and let the separate parts of each be compared. Viewed in reference to metre, they consist of three parts or elements: 1. the vowel (o); 2. the part _preceding_ the vowel (t and b respectively); 3. the parts _following_ the vowel (ld). Now the vowel (o) and the parts following the vowel (ld) are alike in both words (_old_); but the part preceding the vowel is different in the different words (_told_, _bold_). This difference between the parts preceding the vowels is essential; since, if it were not for this, the two words would be identical, or rather there would be but one word altogether. This is the case with _I_ and _eye_. Sound for sound (although different in spelling) the two words are identical, and, consequently, the rhyme is faulty. Again--compared with the words _bold_ and _told_, the words _teeth_ and _breeze_ have two of the elements necessary to constitute a rhyme. The vowels are alike (ee), whilst the parts preceding the vowels are different (br and t); and, as far as these two matters are concerned, the rhyme is a good one, _tee_ and _bree_. Notwithstanding this, there is anything rather than a rhyme; since the parts following the vowel (th and ze) instead of agreeing, differ. _Breathe_ and _beneath_ are in the same predicament, because the th is not sounded alike in the two words. Again--the words _feel_ and _mill_ constitute only a false and imperfect rhyme. Sound for sound, the letters f and m (the parts preceding the vowel) are different. This is as it should be. Also, sound for sound, l and ll (the parts following the vowel) are identical; and this is as it should be also: but ee and i (the vowels) are different, and this difference spoils the rhyme. _None_ and _own_ are in the same predicament; since one o is sounded as o in _note_, and the other as the u in _but_. From what has gone before we get the notion of true and perfect rhymes as opposed to false and imperfect ones. For two (or more) words to rhyme to each other, it is necessary a. That the vowel be the same in both. b. That the parts following the vowel be the same. c. That the parts preceding the vowel be different. Beyond this it is necessary that the syllables, to form a full and perfect rhyme, should be accented syllables. _Sky_ and _lie_ form good rhymes, but _sky_ and merri_ly_ bad ones, and _merrily_ and _silly_ worse. Lines like the second and fourth of the following stanza are slightly exceptionable on this score: indeed, many readers sacrifice the accent in the word _mérrily_ to the rhyme, and pronounce it _merrilý_. The wítch she héld the haír in her hánd, The réd flame blázed hígh; And roúnd aboút the cáldron stoút, They dánced right mérri_lý_.--KIRKE WHITE. § 530. In matters of rhyme the letter h counts as nothing. _High_ and _I_, _hair_ and _air_, are imperfect rhymes, because h (being no articulate sound) counts as nothing, and so the parts before the vowel i and a are not different (as they ought to be) but identical. Whose generous children narrow'd not their hearts With commerce, giv'n alone to arms and arts.--BYRON. § 531. Words where the letters coincide, but the sounds differ, are only rhymes to the eye. _Breathe_ and _beneath_ are both in this predicament; so also are _cease_ and _ease_ (_eaze_). In the fat age of pleasure, wealth, and ease, Sprang the rank weed, and thrived with large increase.--POPE. § 532. If the sounds coincide, the difference of the letters is unimportant. Bold in the practice of mistaken rules, Prescribe, apply, and call their masters fools. They talk of principles, but notions prize, And all to one loved folly sacrifice.--POPE. § 533. _Single rhymes._--An accented syllable standing by itself, and coming under the conditions given above, constitutes a single rhyme. 'Tis hard to say if greater want of _skill_ Appear in writing or in judging _ill_; But of the two, less dangerous is the of_fence_ To tire the patience than mislead the _sense_. Some few in that, but thousands err in _this_; Ten censure wrong, for one that writes a_miss_.--POPE. § 534. _Double rhymes._--An accented syllable followed by an unaccented one, and coming under the conditions given above, constitutes a double rhyme. The meeting points the sacred hair dis_sever_ From her fair head for ever and for _ever_.--POPE. Prove and explain a thing till all men _doubt it_, And write about it, Goddess, and _about it_.--POPE. § 535. An accented syllable followed by two unaccented ones, and coming under the conditions given above, constitutes a treble rhyme. Beware that its fatal a_scéndancy_ Do not tempt thee to mope and repine; With a humble and hopeful de_péndency_ Still await the good pleasure divine. Success in a higher be_átitude_, Is the end of what's under the Pole; A philosopher takes it with _grátitude_, And believes it the best on the whole.--BYRON. § 536. Metres where there is no rhyme are called blank metres. Of man's first disobedience and the fruit Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste Brought death into the world and all our woe, With loss of Eden, till one greater Man Restore us, and regain the blissful seat, Sing, Heavenly Muse!--MILTON. The quality of mercy is not strained. It droppeth as the gentle dew from heaven Upon the place beneath; it is twice bless'd, It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes 'Tis mightiest of the mighty, it becomes The throned monarch better than his crown. His sceptre shows the force of temporal power, The attribute of awe and majesty, Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings: But mercy is above this sceptred sway; It is enthroned in the hearts of kings: It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice.--SHAKSPEARE. § 537. _The last measure in a line or verse is indifferent as to its length._--By referring to the section upon single rhymes, we shall find that the number of syllables is just double the number of accents; that is, to each accented there is one unaccented syllable, and no more. Hence, with five accents, there are to each line ten syllables. This is not the case with all verses. Some rhymes are double, and the last accented syllable has two unaccented ones to follow it. Hence, with five accents there are to each line eleven syllables. Now it is in the last measure that this supernumerary unaccented syllable appears; and it is a general rule, that, in the last measure of any verse, supernumerary unaccented syllables can be admitted without destroying the original character of the measure. § 538. See the verses in the section on double rhymes. Here the original character of the measure is x a throughout, until we get to the words _disséver_ and _for éver_, and afterwards to _men doúbt it_, and _aboút it_. At the first view it seems proper to say that in these last-mentioned cases x a is converted into x a x. A different view, however, is the more correct one. _Disséver_ and _for éver_, are rather x a with a syllable over. This extra syllable may be expressed by the sign _plus_ ( + ), so that the words in point may be expressed by x a +, rather than by x a x. It is very clear that a measure whereof the last syllable is accented (that is, measures like x a, _presúme_, or x x a, _cavalíer_), can only vary from their original character on the side of excess; that is, they can only be altered by the addition of fresh syllables. To subtract a syllable from such feet is impossible; since it is only the last syllable that is capable of being subtracted. If that last syllable, however, be the accented syllable of the measure, the whole measure is annihilated. Nothing remains but the unaccented syllable preceding; and this, as no measure can subsist without an accent, must be counted as a supernumerary part of the preceding measure. § 539. With the measures a x, a x x, x a x, the case is different. Here there is room for syllable or syllables to be subtracted. Queén and húntress, cháste and faír, Nów the sún is laíd to sléep, Seated ín thy sílver chaír, Státe in wónted spléndour keép. Hésperús invókes thy líght, Góddess, éxquisítely bríght.--BEN JONSON. In all these lines the last measure is deficient in a syllable, yet the deficiency is allowable, because each measure is the last one of the line. The formula for expressing _faír_, _sléep_, _chaír_, &c. is not a, but rather a x followed by the _minus_ sign (-), or a x-. A little consideration will show that amongst the English measures, x a and x x a naturally form single, a x and x a x double, and a x x treble rhymes. § 540. The chief metres in English are of the formula x a. It is only a few that are known by fixed names. These are as follows:-- 1. _Gay's stanza._--Lines of three measures, x a, with alternate rhymes. The odd (i.e. the 1st and 3rd) rhymes double. 'Twas when the seas were roaring With hollow blasts of wind, A damsel lay deploring, All on a rock reclined. 2. _Common octosyllabics._--Four measures, x a, with rhyme, and (unless the rhymes be double) eight syllables (_octo syllabæ_).--Butler's Hudibras, Scott's poems, The Giaour, and other poems of Lord Byron. 3. _Elegiac octosyllabics_.--Same as the last, except that the rhymes are regularly alternate, and the verses arranged in stanzas. And on her lover's arm she leant, And round her waist she felt it fold, And far across the hills they went, In that new world which now is old: Across the hills and far away, Beyond their utmost purple rim, And deep into the dying day The happy princess follow'd him.--TENNYSON. 4. _Octosyllabic triplets._--Three rhymes in succession. Generally arranged as stanzas. I blest them, and they wander'd on; I spoke, but answer came there none; The dull and bitter voice was gone.--TENNYSON. 5. _Blank verse._--Five measures, x a, without rhyme, Paradise Lost, Young's Night Thoughts, Cowper's Task. 6. _Heroic couplets._--Five measures, x a, with pairs of rhymes. Chaucer, Denham, Dryden, Waller, Pope, Goldsmith, Cowper, Byron, Moore, Shelley, &c. This is the common metre for narrative, didactic, and descriptive poetry. 7. _Heroic triplets._--Five measures, x a. Three rhymes in succession. Arranged in stanzas. This metre is sometimes interposed among heroic couplets. 8. _Elegiacs._--Five measures, x a; with regularly alternate rhymes, and arranged in stanzas. The curfew tolls the knell of parting day, The lowing herds wind slowly o'er the lea, The ploughman homewards plods his weary way, And leaves the world to darkness and to me.--GRAY. 9. _Rhymes royal._--Seven lines of heroics, with the last two rhymes in succession, and the first five recurring at intervals. This Troilus, in gift of curtesie, With hauk on hond, and with a huge rout Of knightes, rode, and did her company, Passing all through the valley far about; And further would have ridden out of doubt. Full faine and woe was him to gone so sone; But turn he must, and it was eke to doen.--CHAUCER. This metre was common with the writers of the earlier part of Queen Elizabeth's reign. It admits of varieties according to the distribution of the first five rhymes. 10. _Ottava rima._--A metre with an Italian name, and borrowed from Italy, where it is used generally for narrative poetry. The Morgante Maggiore of Pulci, the Orlando Innamorato of Bojardo, the Orlando Furioso of Ariosto, the Gierusalemme Liberata of Tasso, are all written in this metre. Besides this, the two chief epics of Spain and Portugal respectively (the Auraucana and the Lusiados) are thus composed. Hence it is a form of poetry which is Continental rather than English, and naturalized rather than indigenous. The stanza consists of eight lines of heroics, the six first rhyming alternately, the last two in succession. Arrived there, a prodigious noise he hears, Which suddenly along the forest spread; Whereat from out his quiver he prepares An arrow for his bow, and lifts his head; And, lo! a monstrous herd of swine appears, And onward rushes with tempestuous tread, And to the fountain's brink precisely pours, So that the giant's join'd by all the boars. _Morgante Maggiore_ (LD. BYRON'S _Translation_.) 11. _Terza rima._--Like the last, borrowed both in name and nature from the Italian, and scarcely yet naturalized in England. The Spirit of the fervent days of old, When words were things that came to pass, and Thought Flash'd o'er the future, bidding men behold Their children's children's doom already brought Forth from the abyss of Time which is to be, The chaos of events where lie half-wrought Shapes that must undergo mortality: What the great seers of Israel wore within, That Spirit was on them and is on me: And if, Cassandra-like, amidst the din Of conflicts, none will hear, or hearing heed This voice from out the wilderness, the sin Be theirs, and my own feelings be my meed, The only guerdon I have ever known. 12. _Alexandrines._--Six measures, x a, generally (perhaps always) with rhyme. The name is said to be taken from the fact that early romances upon the deeds of Alexander of Macedon, of great popularity, were written in this metre. One of the longest poems in the English language is in the Alexandrines, viz. Drayton's Poly-olbion, quoted above. 13. _Spenserian stanza._--A stanza consisting of nine lines, the first eight heroics, the last an Alexandrine. It hath been through all ages ever seen, That with the prize of arms and chivalrie The prize of beauty still hath joined been, And that for reason's special privitie; For either doth on other much rely. For he meseems most fit the fair to serve That can her best defend from villanie; And she most fit his service doth deserve, That fairest is, and from her faith will never swerve.--SPENSER. Childe Harold and other important poems are composed in the Spenserian stanza. 14. _Service metre._--Couplets of seven measures, x a. This is the common metre of the Psalm versions. It is also called common measure, or long measure. In this metre there is always a pause after the fourth measure, and many grammarians consider that with that pause the line ends. According to this view, the service metre does not consist of two long lines with seven measures each; but of four short ones, with four and three measures each alternately. The Psalm versions are printed so as to exhibit this pause or break. The Lord descended from above, | and bow'd the heavens most high, And underneath his feet He cast | the darkness of the sky. On Cherubs and on Seraphim | full royally He rode, And on the wings of mighty winds | came flying all abroad. STERNHOLD AND HOPKINS. In this matter the following distinction is convenient. When the last syllable of the fourth measure (i.e. the eighth syllable in the line) in the one verse _rhymes_ with the corresponding syllable in the other, the long verse should be looked upon as broken up into two short ones; in other words, the couplets should be dealt with as a stanza. Where there is no rhyme except at the seventh measure, the verse should remain undivided. Thus: Turn, gentle hermit of the glen, | and guide thy lonely way To where yon taper cheers the vale | with hospitable ray-- constitute a single couplet of two lines, the number of rhymes being two. But, Turn, gentle hermit of the dale, And guide thy lonely way To where yon taper cheers the vale With hospitable ray--(GOLDSMITH) constitute a stanza of four lines, the number of rhymes being four. 15. _Ballad stanza._--Service metre broken up in the way just indicated. Goldsmith's Edwin and Angelina, &c. 16. _Poulterer's measure._--Alexandrines and service metre alternately. Found in the poetry of Henry the Eighth's time. * * * * * PART VII. THE DIALECTS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. § 541. Certain parts of England are named as if their population were preeminently _Saxon_ rather than _Angle_; viz., Wes-sex ( = West _Saxons_), Es-sex ( = East _Saxons_), Sus-sex ( = South _Saxons_), and Middle-sex, ( = Middle _Saxons_). Others are named as if their population were preeminently _Angle_ rather than _Saxon_; thus, the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk once constituted the kingdom of the East Angles, and even at the present moment, are often spoken of as _East Anglia_. § 542. It is safe to say that the dialects of the English language do _not_ coincide with the distribution of these terms. That parts of the Angle differ from parts of the Saxon districts in respect to the character of their provincialisms is true; but it is by no means evident that they differ on that account. Thus, that the dialect of Hampshire, which was part of Wes-sex, should differ from that of Norfolk, which was part of East _Anglia_, is but natural. There is a great space of country between them--a fact sufficient to account for their respective characteristics, without assuming an original difference of population. Between the _Saxons_ of Es-sex and the _Anglians_ of Suffolk, no one has professed to find any notable difference. Hence, no division of the English dialects into those of _Saxon_ or those of _Angle_ origin, has been successful. Neither have any peculiarities in the dialect of Kent, or the Isle of Wight, verified the notion of the population for those parts having been originally _Jute_. Nor yet has any portion of England been shown by the evidence of its dialects, to have been _Frisian_. § 543. Yet the solution of such problems is one of the great objects of the study of provincial modes of speech. § 544. That _Jute_ characteristics will be sought in vain is the inference from §§ 7-13. That differential points between the _Angles_ and _Saxons_ will be sought in vain is also probable. On the other hand, differential points between the _Frisians_ and _Angles_ are likely to be discovered. § 545. The traces of the Danes, or Northmen, are distinct; the following forms of local names being _primâ facie_ evidence (at least) of Danish or Norse occupancy. a. The combination Sk-, rather than the sound of Sh-, in such names as Skip-ton, rather than Ship-ton. b. The combination Ca-, rather than Ch-, in such names as Carl-ton rather than Charl-ton. c. The termination -by ( = _town_, _habitation_, _occupancy_,) rather than -ton, as Ash-by, Demble-by, Spills-by, Grims-by, &c. d. The form _Kirk_ rather than _Church_. e. The form _Orm_ rather than _Worm_, as in _Orms-head_. In _Orms-kirk_ and _Kir-by_ we have a combination of Danish characteristics. § 546. In respect to their distribution, the Danish forms are-- At their _maximum_ on the sea-coast of Lincolnshire; i.e., in the parts about Spills-by. Common, but less frequent, in Yorkshire, the Northern counties of England, the South-eastern parts of Scotland, Lancashire, (_Ormskirk_, _Horn-by_), and parts of South Wales (_Orms-head_, _Ten-by_). In Orkney, and the northern parts of Scotland, the Norse had originally the same influence that the Anglo-Saxon had in the south.--See the chapter of the Lowland Scotch. This explains the peculiar distribution of the Norse forms. Rare, or non-existent, in central and southern England, they appear on the opposite sides of the island, and on its northern extremity; showing that the stream of the Norse population went _round the island rather than across it_. § 547. Next to the search after traces of the original differences in the speech of the Continental invaders of Great Britain, the question as to the origin of the _written_ language of England is the most important. Mr. Guest has given good reasons for believing it to have arisen out of a Mercian, rather than a West-Saxon dialect--although of the _Anglo-Saxon_ the West-Saxon was the most cultivated form. This is confirmed by the present state of the Mercian dialects. The country about Huntingdon and Stamford is, in the mind of the present writer, that part of England where provincial peculiarities are at the _minimum_. This may be explained in various ways, of which none is preferable to the doctrine, that the dialect for those parts represents the dialect out of which the literary language of England became developed. Such are the chief problems connected with the study of the provincial dialects of England; the exhibition of the methods applicable to their investigation not being considered necessary in a work like the present. NOTE. That _Saxon_ was the _British_ name of the Germanic invaders of Great Britain is certain.--See § 45. The reasons which induce me to consider it as _exclusively_ British, i.e., as foreign to the Angles, are as follows,-- a. No clear distinction has ever been drawn between, e.g., an _Angle_ of Suffolk, and a _Saxon_ of Essex. b. The Romans who knew, for some parts at least, every inch of the land occupied by the Saxons of Germany, as long as there is reason for believing that they took their names from German sources, never use the word. It is strange to Cæsar, Strabo, Pliny, and Tacitus. Ptolemy is the first who uses it. c. Ecbert, who is said to have attached the name of _Engl_and, or Land of _Angles_, to South Britain, was, himself, no _Angle_, but a West-Saxon.[66] * * * * * QUESTIONS ON PARTS IV. V. VI. and VII. PART IV. 1. What is Johnson's explanation of the word _Etymology_? Into what varieties does the study fall? What is the difference between _Etymology_ and _Syntax_? 2. How far are the following words instances of gender--_boy_, _he-goat_, _actress_, _which_? Analyze the forms _what_, _her_, _its_, _vixen_, _spinster_, _gander_, _drake_. 3. How far is there a dual number in the Gothic tongues? What is the rule for forming such a plural as _stags_ from _stag_? What are the peculiarities in _monarchs_, _cargoes_, _keys_, _pence_, _geese_, _children_, _women_, _houses_, _paths_, _leaves_? Of what number are the words _alms_, _physics_, _news_, _riches_? 4. To what extent have we in English a dative, an accusative, and instrumental case? Disprove the doctrine that the genitive in -s (_the father's son_) is formed out of the combination _father his_. 5. Decline _me_, _thee_, and _ye_. 6. How far is there a true reflective pronoun in English? 7. What were the original powers and forms of _she_, _her_, _it_? What case is _him_? What is the power and origin of _the_ in such expressions as _all the more_? Decline _he_ in Anglo-Saxon. Investigate the forms _these_ and _those_, _whose_, _what_, _whom_, _which_, _myself_, _himself_, _herself_, _such_, _every_. 8. What is the power (real or supposed) of the -er in _over_, and in _either_? 9. What words in the present English are explained by the following forms--_sutiza_ in Moeso-Gothic, and _scearpor_, _neah_, _yldre_, in Anglo-Saxon? Explain the forms, _better_, _worse_, _more_, _less_. 10. Analyze the words _former_, _next_, _upmost_, _thirty_, _streamlet_, _sweetheart_, _duckling_. 11. Translate _Ida wæs Eopping_. Analyze the word _Wales_. 12. Exhibit the extent to which the noun partakes of the character of the verb, and _vice versâ_. What were the Anglo-Saxon forms of, _I can call_, _I begin to call_? 13. Investigate the forms, _drench_, _raise_, _use_ (the verb), _clothe_. 14. _Thou speakest_. What is the peculiarity of the form? _We loven_, _we love_, account for this. 15. _Thou rannest_ = (_tu cucurristi_). Is this an unexceptionable form? if not, why? 16. What are the _moods_ in English? What the _tenses_? How far is the division of verbs into weak and strong tenses natural? Account for the double forms _swam_ and _swum_. Enumerate the other verbs in the same class. Explain the forms _taught_, _wrought_, _ought_, _did_, (from _do_ = _facio_), _did_ (from _do_ = _valeo_), _minded_. 17. Define the term _irregular_, so as to raise the number of irregular verbs, in English, to more than a hundred. Define the same term, so as to reduce them to none. Explain the form _could_. 18. What is the construction of _meseems_ and _methinks_? Illustrate the _future_ power of be. _Werden_ in German means _become_--in what form does the word appear in English? 19. _To err is human_,--_the rising_ in the North. Explain these constructions. Account for the second -r in _forlorn_; and for the y in y_cleped_. 20. Explain the difference between _composite_ and _de-composite_ words, _true_ and _improper compounds_. Analyze the word _nightingale_. 21. How far are adverbs inflected? Distinguish between a _preposition_ and a _conjunction_. 22. Explain the forms _there_, _thence_, _yonder_, and _anon_. 23. What part of speech is _mine_? 24. What is the probable origin of the -d in such preterites as call-ed. PART V. 1. Explain the terms _Syntax_, _Ellipsis_, _Pleonasm_, _Zeugma_, _Pros to semainomenon_, _Apposition_, and _Convertibility_, giving illustrations of each. 2. What is the government of adjectives? 3. What is the construction in-- a. Rob _me_ the Exchequer.--SHAKSPEARE. b. Mount _ye_ on horseback. c. _His_ mother. d. If the salt have lost _his_ savour. e. Myself _is_ weak. f. This is _mine_. 4. What are the concords between the relative and antecedent? How far is, _whom_ do they say that I am, an exceptionable expression? 5. _Eteocles and Polynices killed each other._ What is the construction here? _Ils se battaient, l'un l'autre_--_Ils se battaient, les uns les autres._ Translate these two sentences into English. _My wife and little ones are well._ What is the origin of the word _ones_ here? _It _was_ those who spoke_. _These _was_ those who spoke_. Why is one of those expressions correct, and the other incorrect? 6. What is the difference between-- _The_ secretary and treasurer, and _The_ secretary and _the_ treasurer? What is that between-- The first two-- and The two first? 7. What is the construction of-- He sleeps the sleep of the righteous? 8. Whether do you say--It is I your master who command you, or It is I your master who commands you! 9. Barbican it _hight_. Translate this into Latin. 10. Explain in full the following constructions-- a. I have ridden a horse. b. I am to blame. c. I am beaten. d. A part of the body. e. All fled but John. 11. What is meant by the _Succession of Tenses_? Show the logical necessity of it. 12. Or _hear'st_ thou rather pure ethereal stream, Whose fountain _who can_ tell?--MILTON. Give the meaning of this passage, and explain the figure of speech exhibited in the words in Italics. 13. The _door_ being open the steed was stolen.--In what case is _door_? PART VI. 1. The way was long, the wind was cold. Express the metre of this symbolically. 2. Define _rhyme_. 3. Give instances of _Service metre_, _Blank heroics_, _Alexandrines_. PART VII. 1. How far do the present dialects of England coincide with the parts, that took their names from the _Angles_ and the _Saxons_ respectively. 2. What traces of Danish or Norse occupancy do we find in local names? * * * * * NOTES. * * * * * [1] The immediate authority for these descents, dates, and localities is Sharon Turner. They are nearly the same as those which are noticed in Mr. Kemble's _Saxons in England_. In the former writer, however, they are given as historical facts; in the latter they are subjected to criticism, and considered as exceptionable. [2] It is from Beda that the current opinions as to the details of the Anglo-Saxon invasion are taken; especially the threefold division into Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. These migrations were so large and numerous that the original country of the Angles was left a desert. The distribution of the three divisions over the different parts of England was also Beda's. The work of this important writer--the great luminary of early England--is the _Historia Ecclesiastica_, a title which prepares us for a great preponderance of the ecclesiastical over the secular history. Now Beda's date was the middle of the eighth century. And his locality was the monastery of Wearmouth, in the county of Durham. Both of these facts must be borne in mind when we consider the value of his authority, i.e., his means of knowing, as determined by the conditions of time and place. Christianity was introduced among the Anglo-Saxons of Kent A.D. 597. For the times between them and A.D. 740, we have in Mr. Kemble's _Codex Diplomaticus_ eighty-five charters, all in Latin, and most of them of uncertain authenticity. They are chiefly grants of different kings of Kent, Wessex, the Hwiccas, Mercia, and Northumberland, a few being of Bishops. [3] Gildas was a _British_ ecclesiastic, as Beda was an _English_ one. His locality was North Wales: his time earlier than Beda's by perhaps one hundred years. He states that he was born the year of the _pugna Badonica_, currently called the _Battle of Bath_. Now a chronological table called _Annales Cambrenses_, places that event within one hundred years of the supposed landing of Hengist. But there is no reason for believing this to be a cotemporary entry. Hence, all that can be safely said of Gildas is that he was about as far removed from the seat of the Germanic invasions, in locality, as Beda, whilst in point of time he was nearer. As a writer he is far inferior, being pre-eminently verbose, vague, and indefinite. _Gildas_, as far as he states facts at all, gives the _British_ account of the conquest. No other documents have come down to our time. Beda's own authorities--as we learn from his introduction--were certain of the most learned bishops and abbots of his cotemporaries, of whom he sought special information as to the antiquities of their own establishments. Of cotemporary writers, in the way of authority, there is no mention. For the times between the "accredited date of Hengist and Horsa's landing (A.D. 449) and A.D. 597 (a period of about one hundred and fifty years) the only authorities are a few quotations from Solinus, Gildas, and a Legendary Life of St. Germanus."--_Saxons in Engl._ i. 27. [4] This account is from Jornandes, who is generally considered as the chief repertory of the traditions respecting the Gothic populations. He lived about A.D. 530. The Gepidæ were said to be the _laggards_ of the migration, and the vessel which carried them to have been left behind: and as _gepanta_ in their language meant _slow_, their name is taken therefrom. [5] Widukind was a monk of Corvey in Flanders, who wrote the Ecclesiastical History of his monastery. [6] Geoffry of Monmouth, like Gildas, is a _British_ authority. His date was the reign of Henry II. The _Welsh_ traditions form the staple of Geoffry's work, for which it is the great repertory. [7] The _date_ of this was the reign of Marcus Antoninus. Its _place_, the Danubian provinces of Rhætia, and Pannonia. It was carried on by the Germans of the _frontier_ or _march_--from whence the name--in alliance with the Jazyges, who were undoubtedly Slavonic, and the Quadi, who were probably so. Its details are obscure--the chief authority being Dio Cassius. [8] The reign of Valentinian was from A.D. 365 to A.D. 375. [9] The date of this has been variously placed in A.D. 438, and between A.D. 395 and A.D. 407. Either is earlier than A.D. 449. [10] The Saxon Chronicle consists of a series of entries from the earliest times to the reign of King Stephen, each under its year: the year of the Anglo-Saxon invasion being the usual one, i.e., A.D. 449. The value of such a work depends upon the extent to which the chronological entries are cotemporaneous with the events noticed. Where this is the case, the statement is of the highest historical value; where, however, it is merely taken from some earlier authority, or from a tradition, it loses the character of a _register_, and becomes merely a series of dates--correct or incorrect as the case may be. Where the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle really begins to be a cotemporaneous register is uncertain--all that is certain being that it _is_ so for the _latest_, and is _not_ so for _earliest_ entries. The notices in question come under the former class. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle had been edited by the Master of Trinity College, Oxford (Dr. Ingram), and analyzed by Miss Gurney. [11] Asserius was a learned Welsh ecclesiastic who was invited by King Alfred into Wessex, and employed by that king as one of his associates and assistants in civilizing and instructing his subjects. Several works are mentioned as having been written by Asserius, but the only one extant is his history of King Alfred, which is a chronicle of various events between the year of Alfred's birth, A.D. 849, to A.D. 889. Asserius is supposed to have died Bishop of Sherborne, A.D. 910. [12] The compounds of the Anglo-Saxon word _ware_ = _occupants_, _inhabitants_, are too numerous to leave any doubt as to this, and several other, derivations. _Cant-ware_ = _Cant-icolæ_ = _people of Kent_: _Hwic-ware_ = _Hviccas_ = _the people_ of parts of Worcestershire,[67] Glostershire, and (to judge from the name) of _War-wick_shire also. [13] The Annales Saxonici, or Saxon Chronicles, embrace the history of Britain, between the landing of Cæsar and the accession of Henry II. They are evidently the work of various and successive writers, who were Saxon ecclesiastics. But nothing certain can be affirmed of the authors of their respective portions.--See Note 10. [14] See Note 2. [15] Adam of Bremen was a Minor Canon of the Cathedral of Bremen, about the years 1067-1077. He travelled in Denmark, and was in great favour with King Sweyn of that country. He wrote an Ecclesiastical History of the spread of Christianity in the North, to which he appended a description of the geography, population, and archæology of Denmark and the neighbouring countries. [16] Ethelward was an Anglo-Saxon nobleman, who wrote a chronicle of events from the creation of the world to the death of King Edgar, A.D. 875. [17] The following is a specimen of the Frisian of Gysbert Japicx, in metre. It is part of a rustic song, supposed to be sung by a peasant on his return from a wedding feast. Date about A.D. 1650. "Swíet, ja swíet, is't oer 'e míete, 'T boáskiere fóar é jonge lie, Kreftich swíet is't, sizz ik jiette, As it giet mei alders ríe. Mai óars tiget 'et to 'n pléach, As ik óan myn geafeunt seach." Translation of the same from Bosworth's _Anglo-Saxon Dictionary_, p. lxxiii. "Sweet, yes, sweet is over (_beyond_) measure, The marrying for the young lede (_people_); Most sweet is it, I say yet (_once more_), When (_as_) it goes with the rede (_counsel_) of the elders. But otherwise it tends to a plague, As I saw on (_by the example of_) my village fellow." [18] Of the early constitution of states of East Friesland, we have a remarkable illustration in the old Frisian Laws. These are in the native Frisian tongue, and, except that they represent republican rather than monarchical institutions, are similar in form, in spirit, to the Saxon. [19] The great blow against the sovereignty of Rome, and the one which probably prevented Germany from becoming a Roman province, was struck by the Cheruscan Arminius against Quintilius Varus, in the reign of Augustus. The date of the organized insurrection of Arminius was A.D. 9; the place, the neighbourhood of Herford, or Engern, in Westphalia. Drawn into an inpracticable part of the country, the troops of Varus were suddenly attacked and cut to pieces--consisting of more than three legions. "Never was victory more decisive, never was the liberation of an oppressed people more instantaneous and complete. Throughout Germany the Roman garrisons were assailed and cut off; and, within a few weeks after Varus had fallen, the German soil was freed from the foot of an invader. "Had Arminius been supine or unsuccessful, our Germanic ancestors would have been enslaved or exterminated in their original seats along the Eyder and the Elbe. This island would never have borne the name of England, and we, this great English nation, whose race and language are now overrunning the earth, from one end of it to the other, would have been utterly cut off from existence."[68] [20] _Heliand_ is the gerund from _helian_ = _heal_, and means _the Healer_ or _Saviour_. It is the name of an old Saxon poem, in alliterative metre, of the tenth or eleventh century, in the dialect supposed to have belonged to the parts about Essen, Cleves, and Munster in Westphalia. It is a sort of Gospel Harmony, or Life of Christ, taken from the Gospels. It has been edited by Schmeller. [21] Hildubrand and Hathubrant, father and son, are two legendary heroes belonging to that cycle of German fiction of which Theodoric of Verona is the centre. A fragment containing an account of their hostile meeting, being mutually unknown, in alliterative metre, represents the _fictional_ poetry of the old Saxons in the same way (though not to the same extent) that the Heliand represents their sacred poetry. The "Hildubrand and Hathubrant" have been edited by Grimm. [22] In a language which for a long time was considered to be the Dutch of Holland in its oldest known form, there is an imperfect translation of the Psalms; referred by the best writers on the subject to the reign of Charlemagne, and thence called the Carolinian Psalms. The best text of this is to be found in a Dutch periodical, the _Taalkundig Magazijn_. [23] _Beowulf_ is by far the most considerable poem, not only in Anglo-Saxon, but in any old Gothic tongue. It has been admirably edited and translated by Mr. Kemble. The subject is the account of Beowulf, an Angle hero--Angle but not English, as the scene of the poem is on the Continent. In its present form it shows traces of the revision of some Christian writer: the basis, however, of its subject, and the manners it describes, are essentially Pagan. The most remarkable feature in the poem is the fact that no allusion is made to England--so that, _Anglo_-Saxon as the work is--it belongs to the Anglo-Saxons of Germany before they became English. [24] A Gospel Harmony translated from the one of Tatian, exists in a dialect too little purely High German, to pass absolutely as such, yet less _Low_ German than the Dutch of Holland. This belongs to the _Middle_ Rhine, and is called _Frank_. [25] The Alemannic is the German of the _Upper_ Rhine; the dialect out of which the Bavarian and Swiss grew. Its chief specimens occur in-- a. _The Glosses of Kero_-- b. _The Psalms_ by a monk named _Notker_. c. A life of _Anno_ of Cologne. d. The Song of Solomon, by Willeram. e. _Musrpilli_, an alliterative poem. f. _Krist_, a life of Christ, by Otford, and others less important. Most of these (along with Tatian), are to be found in Schilter's _Thesaurus_. (Original footnotes) [26] In Hampshire. [27] In Northern Germany. [28] The Eyder. [29] See §§ 21-29. [30] Saxons _North of the Elbe_ (_Albis_). [31] See Notes 17 and 18. [32] De Mor. Germ. 40. [33] Meaning _ditch_ [34] This list is taken from Smart's valuable and logical English Grammar. [35] As in _Shotover Hill_, near Oxford. [36] As in _Jerusalem artichoke_. [37] A sort of silk. [38] _Ancient Cassio_--"Othello." [39] Be she constant, be she fickle, Be she flame, or be she _ickle_.--SIR C. SEDLEY. [40] Or _periphrastic_. [41] That of the verb substantive, _if I were_, subjunctive, as opposed to _I was_, indicative. [42] This by no means implies that such was the power of [sigma], [zeta], [gamma], [kappa], in Greek. They are merely convenient symbols. [43] As a _name_, _Sigma = Samech_. [44] Of the Hebrew and Greek tables. [45] In _thin_. [46] In _thine_. [47] Write one letter twice. [48] This explains the words, "Whatever they may have been originally," and "to a certain extent," in § 212. [49] Used as adverbs. [50] Used as the plurals of _he_, _she_, and _it_. [51] Different from _ilk_. [52] Or _call-s_. [53] _Thou sangest_, _thou drankest_, &c.--For a reason given in the sequel, these forms are less exceptionable than _sungest_, _drunkest_, &c. [54] The forms marked thus * are either obsolete or provincial. [55] Obsolete. [56] Sounded _wun_. [57] Pronounced _ment_. [58] Pronounced _herd_. [59] Pronounced _sed_. [60] So pronounced. [61] Pronounced _leevd_, _cleevd_, _bereevd_, _deeld_, _feeld_, _dreemd_, _lernd_. [62] Pronounced _delt_. [63] Found rarely; _bist_ being the current form.--"Deutsche Grammatik," i. 894. [64] Notwithstanding the extent to which a relative may take the appearance of a conjunction, there is always one unequivocal method of deciding its true nature. The relative is always a _part_ of the second proposition. A conjunction is _no part_ of either. [65] "Latin Prose Composition," p. 123. [66] This is worked out more fully in the "Germany of Tacitus, with Ethnological Notes," by the present author. [67] Preserved in the name of the town Wick-war. [68] "The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World," by Professor Creasy. * * * * * Elements of Moral Philosophy: ANALYTICAL, SYNTHETICAL, AND PRACTICAL. BY HUBBARD WINSLOW. 12mo. 480 pages. Price $1 50. This work is an original and thorough examination of the fundamental laws of Moral Science, and of their relations to Christianity and to practical life. It has already taken a firm stand among our highest works of literature and science. From the numerous commendations of it by our most learned and competent men, we have room for only the following brief extracts: _From the _REV. THOMAS H. SKINNER, D.D._, of the Union Theol. Sem., N.Y._ "It is a work of uncommon merit, on a subject very difficult to be treated well. His analysis is complete. He has shunned no question which his purpose required him to answer, and he has met no adversary which he has not overcome." _From _REV. L. P. HICKOK_, Vice-President of Union College._ "I deem the book well adapted to the ends proposed in the preface. The style is clear, the thoughts perspicuous. I think it calculated to do good, to promote the truth, to diffuse light and impart instruction to the community, in a department of study of the deepest interest to mankind." _From _REV. JAMES WALKER, D.D._, President of Harvard University._ "Having carefully examined the more critical parts, to which my attention has been especially directed, I am free to express my conviction of the great clearness, discrimination, and accuracy of the work, and of its admirable adaptation to its object." _From _REV. RAY PALMER, D.D._, of Albany._ "I have examined this work with great pleasure, and do not hesitate to say that in my judgment it is greatly superior to any treatise I have seen, in all the essential requisites of a good text-book." _From _PROF. ROUSSEAU D. HITCHCOCK, D.D._, of Union Theol. Sem., N.Y._ "The task of mediating between science and the popular mind, is one that requires a peculiar gift of perspicuity, both in thought and style; and this, I think, the author possesses in an eminent degree. I am pleased with its comprehensiveness, its plainness, and its fidelity to the Christian stand-point." _From _PROF. HENRY B. SMITH, D.D._, of the Union Theol. Sem., N.Y._ "It commends itself by its clear arrangement of the topics, its perspicuity of language, and its constant practical bearings. I am particularly pleased with its views of conscience. Its frequent and pertinent illustrations, and the Scriptural character of its explanations of the particular duties, will make the work both attractive and valuable as a text-book, in imparting instruction upon this vital part of philosophy." _From _W. D. WILSON, D.D._, Professor of Intellectual and Moral Philosophy in Hobart Free College._ "I have examined the work with care, and have adopted it as a text-book in the study of Moral Science. I consider it not only sound in doctrine, but clear and systematic in method, and withal pervaded with a prevailing healthy tone of sentiment, which cannot fail to leave behind, in addition to the truths it inculcates, an impression in favor of those truths. I esteem this one of the greatest merits of the book. In this respect it has no equal, so far as I know; and I do not hesitate to speak of it as being preferable to any other work yet published, for use in all institutions where Moral Philosophy forms a department in the course of instruction." * * * * * A History of Philosophy: AN EPITOME. BY DR. ALBERT SCHWEGLER. TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL GERMAN, BY JULIUS H. SEELYE. 12mo. 365 pages. Price $1 50. This translation is designed to supply a want long felt by both teachers and students in our American colleges. We have valuable histories of Philosophy in English, but no _manual_ on this subject so clear, concise, and comprehensive as the one now presented. Schwegler's work bears the marks of great learning, and is evidently written by one who has not only studied the original sources for such a history, but has thought out for himself the systems of which he treats. He has thus seized upon the real germ of each system, and traced its process of development with great clearness and accuracy. The whole history of speculation, from Thales to the present time, is presented in its consecutive order. This rich and important field of study, hitherto so greatly neglected, will, it is hoped, receive a new impulse among American students through Mr. Seelye's translation. It is a book, moreover, invaluable for reference, and should be in the possession of every public and private library. _From _L. P. HICKOK_, Vice-President of Union College._ "I have had opportunity to hear a large part of Rev. Mr. Seelye's translation of Schwegler's History of Philosophy read from manuscript, and I do not hesitate to say that it is a faithful, clear, and remarkably precise English rendering of this invaluable Epitome of the History of Philosophy. It is exceedingly desirable that it should be given to American students of philosophy in the English language, and I have no expectation of its more favorable and successful accomplishment than in this present attempt. I should immediately introduce it as as a text-book in the graduate's department under my own instruction, if it be favorably published, and cannot doubt that other teachers will rejoice to avail themselves of the like assistance from it." _From _HENRY B. SMITH_, Professor of Christian Theology, Union Theological Seminary, N.Y._ "It will well reward diligent study, and is one of the best works for a text-book in our colleges upon this neglected branch of scientific investigation." _From _N. PORTER_, Professor of Intellectual Philosophy in Yale College._ "It is the only book translated from the German which professes to give an account of the recent German systems which seems adapted to give any intelligible information on the subject to a novice." _From _GEO. P. FISHER_, Professor of Divinity in Yale College._ "It is really the best Epitome of the History of Philosophy now accessible to the English student." _From _JOSEPH HAVEN_, Professor of Mental Philosophy in Amherst College._ "As a manual and brief summary of the whole range of speculative inquiry, I know of no work which strikes me more favorably." * * * * * A Digest of English Grammar. BY L. T. COVELL. 12mo. 219 pages. Price 60 cents. This work is designed as a text-book for the use of schools and academies; it is the result of long experience of an eminently successful teacher, and will be found to possess many peculiar advantages. The work is both synthetical and analytical, and its principles are strictly practical; the different subjects are carefully separated and methodically arranged, so that all difficulty as to what belongs to Etymology, Syntax, and Analysis, is entirely removed, and the latter, which is very properly placed in the first part of Syntax, is rendered quite as simple and easy of comprehension as the most plain portion of grammar. One subject is taken up at a time, and, when fully explained, models of Analysis are given, and examples for practice follow. The principles of the work are sound; the definitions are direct, short, and accurate. The rules, though ample, are few, plain, and concise; and the language throughout the work is simple, clear, and expressive. The method of treating the Elementary Sounds, is that which is now highly approved. The principles of Derivation, and of Orthographic Analysis, are brought within the comprehension of the youngest learner. _From Forty-four Teachers of Public Schools, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania._ "The undersigned have examined Covell's Digest of English Grammar, and are of opinion that in the justness of its general views, the excellence of its style, the brevity, accuracy, and perspicuity of its definitions and rules, the numerous examples and illustrations, the adaptation of its synthetical exercises, the simplicity of its method of analysis, and in the plan of its arrangement, this work surpasses any other Grammar now before the public; and that in all respects it is most admirably adapted to the use of schools and academies." _From _JOHN M. WOLCOTT, A.M._, Principal and Superintendent of Ninth Ward School, Pittsburg, Pa._ "Covell's Digest of English Grammar not only evinces the most unceasing labor, the most extensive research, the most unrelaxing effort, and the most devoted self-sacrificing study of its author, but it is the most complete, the most perfect, and, to me, the most satisfactory exposition of English Grammar that has come to my notice. It appears to me that every youth aspiring to become master of the English language, from the rudimental principles to the full, round, beautiful, faultless, perfect period, will make this volume his '_vade mecum_.'" * * * * * Natural Philosophy: EMBRACING THE MOST RECENT DISCOVERIES IN THE VARIOUS BRANCHES OF PHYSICS, AND EXHIBITING THE APPLICATION OF SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES IN EVERY-DAY LIFE. ACCOMPANIED WITH FULL DESCRIPTIONS OF EXPERIMENTS, PRACTICAL EXERCISES, AND NUMEROUS ILLUSTRATIONS. BY G. P. QUACKENBOS, A.M. 12mo. 450 pages. Price $1 25. This book, which is illustrated in the most liberal manner, is equally adapted for use with or without apparatus. It is distinguished 1. For its remarkable clearness. 2. For its fullness of illustration. 3. For its original method of dealing with difficulties. 4. For its correction of numerous errors heretofore unfortunately stereotyped in School Philosophies. 5. For its explanation of scientific principles as they appear in every-day life. 6. For its practical application of these principles in questions presented for the pupil's solution. 7. For a signal perspicuity of arrangement. One thing being presented at a time and everything in its proper place, the whole is impressed without difficulty on the mind. 8. For the interest with which it invests the subject. From the outset, the student is fascinated and filled with a desire to fathom the wonders of the material world. 9. For the embodiment of all recent discoveries in the various departments of philosophy. Instead of relying on the obsolete authorities that have furnished the matter for many of our popular school Philosophies, the author has made it his business to acquaint himself with the present state of science, and thus produced such a work as is demanded by the progressive spirit of the age. All who have examined this book commend it in the highest terms. "Mr. QUACKENBOS has long been favorably known as a teacher and also a writer of educational books. This elementary work on Natural Philosophy strikes us as being one of his most useful and happy efforts."--_N. Y. Courier and Enquirer._ "A very complete system. We have been particularly struck with the conciseness and intelligible character of the definitions and explanations."--_N. Y. Observer._ "It is much the most complete and instructive school-book on Natural Philosophy that we have ever seen."--_Christian Union, Louisville, Ky._ "Every reasonable requirement is met in this new work."--_Gazette, Pittsburg, Pa._ "The whole arrangement is decidedly superior to anything of the kind that ever fell under our inspection."--_Post, Hartford, Conn._ "It places the principles and rules of philosophy within the reach of the young student in a most attractive form."--_Evening Transcript, Boston._ * * * * * THE SERIES COMPLETED * * * * * PERFECTED EDITIONS OF Webster's Dictionaries, FOR SCHOOLS AND EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS OF EVERY GRADE, AS WELL AS FAMILIES AND GENERAL USE. WEBSTER'S POCKET DICTIONARY, Diamond, 32mo. Prices 50 cts. and 84 cts. WEBSTER'S PRIMARY SCHOOL DICTIONARY, 304 pp., 16mo. Price 50 cts. WEBSTER'S COMMON SCHOOL DICTIONARY, 320 pp., 12mo. Price 75 cts. WEBSTER'S HIGH SCHOOL DICTIONARY, 350 pp., 12mo. Price $1 00. WEBSTER'S ACADEMIC DICTIONARY, 472 pp., cap 4to. Price $1 50. WEBSTER'S COUNTING-HOUSE AND FAMILY DICTIONARY, 522 pp., Imperial 12mo. Price $1 75. The publishers have now the pleasure of presenting the abridgments of Webster's American Dictionary in a carefully revised, greatly improved, and, as nearly as possible, perfected form. The series is rendered complete, and made to include a book just suited to every purpose for which an abridgment of the complete work can be desired, by the introduction of two new books, viz.: The Common School Dictionary, Intermediate between the Primary School and the High School; and the Counting-House and Family Dictionary, a much more full and comprehensive abridgment than we have before offered. The other books in the series have also been most carefully revised, and the new abridgments prepared, by and under the direction of Prof. C. E. Goodrich and Mr. Wm. G. Webster, with assistance from other most competent sources, no pains having been spared to remove any, however slight, grounds for reasonable objection which may have existed to the books in the old form, and to render them as nearly perfect as possible, and yet more worthy the high position they occupy as the STANDARD DICTIONARIES OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, proved to be such by a sale many times greater than that of all other dictionaries published in America combined, and acknowledged such by our Courts of Justice, as well as the people at large. The old stereotype plates having been much worn by the immense numbers of books printed from them, the occasion has been embraced to make the very thorough revision and improvement now completed. All the books in the series are now printed, therefore, on ENTIRELY NEW ELECTROTYPE PLATES, and are uniform in Definitions, Orthography, Orthoepy, &c. It is deemed unnecessary to enlarge upon the claims of these well-known standard works. _Literally thousands_ of testimonials to their superiority to all others are in the hands of the publishers, from the most eminent educational and literary men in all parts of the country. From year to year their sale is steadily and rapidly increasing. It is believed that the mere _increase_ in the sale of these abridgments the present year, will be greater than the entire combined sale of all other American Dictionaries. PUBLISHED BY MASON BROTHERS, NEW YORK. FOR SALE BY BOOKSELLERS GENERALLY. * * * * * Class-Book of Physiology. BY B. N. COMINGS, M. D., PROFESSOR OF PHYSIOLOGY, CHEMISTRY, AND NATURAL HISTORY, IN CONNECTICUT STATE NORMAL SCHOOL. 12mo. 324 pages. Price $1 25. REVISED EDITION, WITH AN APPENDIX. Professor Comings' thorough acquaintance with every department of Physiology, and his long experience as a teacher of that science, qualify him in an eminent degree for preparing an accurate and useful text-book on the subject. He has lost no opportunity of introducing practical instructions in the principles of hygiene, thus not only making the pupil acquainted with the wondrous workmanship of his own frame, but showing him how to preserve it in a sound and healthy state. Avoiding technical terms, as far as possible, he has brought the subject fully within the comprehension of the young, and has clothed it with unusual interest, by judicious references to the comparative physiology of the inferior animals. Pictorial illustrations have been freely introduced, wherever it was thought they could aid or interest the student. Physiology cannot but be considered, by every intelligent and reflecting mind, an exceedingly interesting and necessary study. It makes us acquainted with the structure and uses of the organs of life, and the laws by which we may keep them active and vigorous for the longest period. The publishers would respectfully urge its importance on such teachers as have not heretofore made it a regular branch in their institutions; and would solicit, at the hands of all, an impartial examination of what is pronounced by good judges, "the best elementary text-book" on the science. _From _M. Y. BROWN_, Principal of Webster School, New Haven._ "I have used Comings' Class-Book of Physiology for nearly two school terms in the First Department of my school. I am happy to say that I regard it the _best text-book_ on this important branch with which I have any acquaintance. The subjects are systematically arranged; the principles, facts, and illustrations are clearly and fully represented to the pupil. I find that his introduction of Comparative Anatomy and Physics, tends greatly to increase the interest of the pupil in this _most important_ and necessary study. I therefore can cheerfully recommend this admirable work to my fellow-teachers as one of rare excellence, and hope it may take the rank it deserves as a text-book upon this subject." _From _ABRAHAM POWELSON, JR._, Teacher, Brooklyn, New York._ "After a very careful examination of the Class-Book of Physiology, by Comings, I can freely say that I consider it a performance of superior excellence. It embodies a fund of information surpassing in importance and variety that of any other work of the kind which has come under my notice." * * * * * "Get the Best." * * * * * Webster's Quarto Dictionary. UNABRIDGED.--SOLD BY ALL BOOKSELLERS. PUBLISHED BY C. & G. MERRIAM, SPRINGFIELD, MASS. _From_ DANIEL WEBSTER. I possess many Dictionaries, and of most of the learned and cultivated languages, ancient and modern; but I never feel that I am entirely armed and equipped in this respect, without Dr. Webster at command. [Illustration] _From_ RUFUS CHOATE. Messrs. G. &. C. Merriam:--Gentlemen, I have just had the honor of receiving the noble volume in which you and the great lexicographer, and the accomplished reviser, unite your labors to "bid the language live." I accept it with the highest pride and pleasure, and beg to adopt in its utmost strength and extent, the testimonial of Daniel Webster. [Illustration] _From_ JOHN C. SPENCER. Unquestionably the very best Dictionary of our language extant. Its great accuracy in the definition and derivation of words, gives it an authority that no other work on the subject possesses. It is constantly cited and relied on in our Courts of Justice, in our legislative bodies, and in public discussions, as entirely conclusive. [Illustration] _From_ ELIHU BURRITT. Webster's great Dictionary may be regarded as bearing the same relation to the English language which Newton's "_Principia_" does to the sublime science of Natural Philosophy. [Illustration] _From _PRESIDENT HOPKINS_, Williams College_. There is no American scholar who does not feel proud of the labors of Dr. Webster as the pioneer of lexicography on this continent, and who will not readily admit the great and distinctive merits of his Dictionary. [Illustration] _From_ JOHN G. WHITTIER. The best and safest guide of the students of our language. [Illustration] _From_ FITZ GREENE HALLECK. Of the book itself I hear but one opinion from all around me, and do but echo the universal voice in expressing my approval of its great worth, and my belief that it has rendered any further research, or even improvement in our time, unnecessary in its department of instruction. [Illustration] * * * * * QUACKENBOS'S TEXT-BOOKS. * * * * * The Publishers invite particular attention to the following school-books, by G. P. QUACKENBOS, A. M. They have stood the test of criticism, and have become acknowledged standards on the subjects of which they respectively treat. The secret of their success is their perfect adaptation in style, language, and development of the subject, to the pupil's comprehension. It is this that wins for them a general introduction, and makes them special favorites with both teacher and scholar. * * * * * QUACKENBOS'S ILLUSTRATED SCHOOL HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, from the Earliest Discoveries to the Present Time: embracing a full account of the Aborigines, Biographical Notices of Distinguished Men, and numerous Maps, Plans of Battle-Fields, and Pictorial Illustrations. 12mo. 460 pages. Price $1 25. In elegance of style, accuracy, clearness, interest of narrative, richness of illustration, and adaptation to public and private schools of every grade, this History is pronounced by all who have examined it, far in advance of every similar work heretofore published. "I shall at once introduce it as the best work of the kind on this important branch of education."--_J. D. H. Corwine, Principal Kentucky Liberal Institute._ "It is a most delightful volume, and, were I teaching a dozen classes in United States History, I would use no other book but yours."--_Rev. Charles Reynolds, Rector of Trinity Church, Columbus, Ohio._ * * * * * QUACKENBOS'S FIRST LESSONS IN ENGLISH COMPOSITION. Intended for beginners in Grammar and Composition. 12mo. 182 pages. Price 63 cts. * * * * * QUACKENBOS'S ADVANCED COURSE OF COMPOSITION AND RHETORIC. 12mo. 450 pages. Price $1 25. A Series of Practical Lessons on the Origin, History, and Peculiarities of the English Language, Punctuation, Taste, the Pleasures of the Imagination, Figures, Style and its essential Properties, Criticism, and the various departments of Prose and Poetical Composition. * * * * * QUACKENBOS'S ILLUSTRATED NATURAL PHILOSOPHY for Schools and Academies: which unfolds the Laws of the Material World, treats of the various branches of Physics, exhibits the Application of their Principles in every day life and embraces the most recent Discoveries in each. 12mo. 450 pages. Price $1 25. * * * * * Confident as to the result of an impartial examination of the above works, the Publishers will mail a copy of either of them, post-paid, to any teacher or school officer remitting one-half of its price. * * * * * ADVANCED COURSE OF Composition and Rhetoric. A SERIES OF PRACTICAL LESSONS ON THE ORIGIN, HISTORY, AND PECULIARITIES OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, PUNCTUATION, TASTE, THE PLEASURES OF THE IMAGINATION, FIGURES, STYLE AND ITS ESSENTIAL PROPERTIES, CRITICISM, AND THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS OF PROSE AND POETICAL COMPOSITION. ILLUSTRATED WITH COPIOUS EXERCISES. BY G. P. QUACKENBOS, A. M. 12mo. 450 pages. Price $1 25. This work is an eminently clear and practical text-book, and embraces a variety of important subjects, which have a common connection, and mutually illustrate each other; but which the pupil has heretofore been obliged to leave unlearned, or to search for among a number of different volumes. Claiming to give a comprehensive and practical view of our language in all its relations, this "Advanced Course" views it as a whole, no less than with reference to the individual words composing it; shows how it compares with other tongues; points out its beauties; indicates how they may best be made available; and, in a word, teaches the student the most philosophical method of digesting his thoughts, as well as the most effective mode of expressing them. It teaches Rhetoric not merely theoretically, like the old textbooks, but _practically_, illustrating every point with exercises to be prepared by the student, which at once test his familiarity with the principles laid down, and impress them on his mind so vividly that they can never be effaced. Hon. A. CONSTANTINE BARRY, State Superintendent of the Common Schools of Wisconsin, in a Report to the Legislature of that State, uses the following strong language in relation to QUACKENBOS'S works on Composition: "It would be difficult to point out in these admirable books any thing that we would desire to have altered; they meet our wants in every respect, making no unreasonable draft on the time or patience of the teacher, and leaving him no excuse for neglecting to make composition a regular study, even with his younger classes. It is unnecessary to compare these books with others on the subject, for THERE ARE NONE THAT APPROACH THEM in clearness, comprehensiveness, excellence of arrangement, and above all, in direct practical bearing. Affording an insight into the mechanism of language, they will hardly fail to impart facility and grace of expression, and to inspire a love for the beauties of literature." _From _PROF. JOHN N. PRATT_, of the University of Alabama._ "I have been using QUACKENBOS on Composition and Rhetoric in the instruction of my classes in the University, and I am persuaded of its GREAT EXCELLENCE. The First Lessons in Composition, by the same author, I regard as very useful for beginners. Of these two books, I can speak with the greatest confidence, and I do MOST HEARTILY RECOMMEND THEM to all." * * * * * Illustrated School History OF THE UNITED STATES, FROM THE EARLIEST DISCOVERIES TO THE PRESENT TIME: EMBRACING A FULL ACCOUNT OF THE ABORIGINES, BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF DISTINGUISHED MEN, AND NUMEROUS MAPS, PLANS OF BATTLE-FIELDS, AND PICTORIAL ILLUSTRATIONS. BY G. P. QUACKENBOS, A. M. 12mo. 473 pages. Price $1 25. The Author has aimed to be _simple_, that youth of lower as well as advanced classes may understand him; _clear_, that no indistinct or erroneous impressions may be conveyed; _accurate_ in the recital of facts; and _interesting_ as regards both matter and style. Avoiding fragmentary statements, he has gone into detail sufficiently to show events in their connections, convinced that a fairer idea of them is thus imparted, and that facts otherwise dry may in this way be made attractive and indelibly impressed on the mind. He has tried throughout to be fair and national. He has neither introduced offensive allusions, nor invidiously attempted to bias the minds of the young on controverted questions connected with politics or religion. The pronunciation of all difficult and foreign names is given in brackets; and appropriate illustrations have been liberally provided. Maps are as useful in history as in geography, and plans are often essential to the lucid delineation of military movements. Both are here presented wherever it was thought they would be of service. In elegance of style, accuracy clearness, interest of narrative, richness of illustration, and adaptation to the school-room, this History is pronounced far in advance of every similar work heretofore published. _From _PROF. H. D. LATHROP_, Gambier, Ohio._ It seems to me admirably adapted to the purpose intended. The style is simple and attractive, the narrative accurate and sufficiently minute, the illustrations appropriate and elegant, and the typographical execution all that could be desired. _From _J. D. H. CORWINE_, Principal Kentucky Liberal Institute._ I shall at once introduce it as _the best-work of the kind_ on this important branch of education. _From _REV. JOSEPH SHACKELFORD_, Principal Institute, Moulton, Ala._ I think it superior to many that I have examined as a school-book. I have been using Wilson's, but I think this is a much better book for schools. _From _REV. CHARLES REYNOLDS_, Rector of Trinity Church, Columbus, Ohio._ It is a most delightful volume, and were I teaching a dozen classes in United States History, I would use no other book but yours. * * * * * Corrections made to printed original. Contents 83--90. "Miscellaneous elements": 'Miscellaneons' in original. Contents 366. "Peacock, peahen": 'peahern' in original. Contents 416. "Zeugma": 'Leugma' in original. § 29. "rather than the Anglo-Saxon itself": 'than' missing in original. § 40. Sing. Gen. "Túngunnar": 'Túngunnor' in original (this doesn't match the previous table, also checked in Cleasby & Vigfusson's Icelandic-English Dictionary). § 74. "They relate chiefly": 'The relate' in original. § 87. "The history of the language of the United States is the history of a Germanic language.": 'languages of the United States' in original, but the sense seems to need the singular, viz. American English. § 87. "gadus lota, or eel-pout": 'ell-pout' in original. § 100. 1. "Of the dative singular the e is retained": 'sing-gular' in original across line break. § 135. "or thus, riv-er, feve-r": 'fe-ver' in original (cannot be right as it is being contrasted to the previous 'fe-ver'). § 136. "Let, however, the n and the t of note": 'not' in original but is being contrasted to the 'not' in the previous sentence. § 155. "it may be replaced by k": 'is may be ...' in original. § 159. "The letters x and q": 'The letter ...' in original. § 161. (Table of names) "17. Pe ... Pi": '17. Pi ... Phi' in original, but compare the preceding table and § 175. § 163. 16. (Hebrew) "Pe": 'Phi' in original, but compare § 175. "§ 176." '§ 175' in original. § 199 c. "as if written peace": 'as is ...' in original. § 222. "it is me = it is I": 'it is me it = is I' in original. § 235. Compound pronouns. 3. "some such word as ei": 'some such wore ...' in original. "§ 259." '§ 250' in original. § 267. "the words lambkin, ...": 'the works ...' in original. § 272. "the termination -ing": 'terminations ...' in original. § 290. Anglo-Saxon. "Swang ... swungon": 'Swang ... swangon' in original. § 308. "Þencan, þóhte.": 'Þeecan, þóhte.' in original. § 316. "the Latin word audeo": 'auedo' in original. § 322. 4. "As early as A.D. 1085": 'nearly' in original. § 324. "The current rule of the common grammarians is ...": 'is' missing in original. § 354. "by the word rose prefixed.": 'the word tree' in original. § 383. "The full amount of change in this respect": 'repect' in original. § 397. a. "Anglo-Saxon mec and þec": 'mec and pec' in original. § 408. "sôk-idêdun, from sôk-ja": 'sôk-iddêun' in original. § 418. "the words Roman emperor": 'word' in original. § 421. "the word speak is an infinitive": 'in an infinitive' in original. § 433. "villainouser": 'villanouser' in original. § 455. "4.": '3.' in original. § 508. 2. "lest he fall upon us with pestilence.": 'us' missing in original (KJV Exod. v. 3.) § 540. 5. "Blank verse.--Five measures": 'Pive measures' in original. § 540. 8. "leaves the world to darkness and to me": 'leaves the word ...' in original. *** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A HANDBOOK OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE *** Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed. Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law 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™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. 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™ 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™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license. Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works 1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ 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™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ 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™ 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™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ 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™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law 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™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ 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™ 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™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than 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™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ 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 in the United States and most other parts of the world 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. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook. 1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (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™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. 1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ 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™ 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™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™. 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™ 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™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (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™ 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™ 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™ electronic works provided that: • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ 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™ 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™ 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™ works. 1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ 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 works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ 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™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ 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 MERCHANTABILITY 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™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ 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™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause. Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™ Project Gutenberg™ 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™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ 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™ 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 information page at www.gutenberg.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. 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 business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread 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 www.gutenberg.org/donate. 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: www.gutenberg.org/donate. Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright 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 website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org. This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, 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.