s. 72. The Anglo-Saxon.—This is not noticed here, because, from being the staple of the present language, it is more or less the subject of the book throughout.

s. 73. The Danish, or Norse.—The pirates that pillaged Britain, under the name of Danes, were not exclusively the inhabitants of Denmark. Of the three Scandinavian nations, the Swedes took the least share, the Norwegians the greatest, in these invasions.

The language of the three nations was the same; the differences being differences of dialect. It was that which is now spoken in Iceland, having been once common to Scandinavia and Denmark.

The Danish that became incorporated with our language, under the reign of Canute and his sons, may be called the direct Danish element, in contradistinction to the indirect Danish of s. 76.

The determination of the amount of Danish in English is difficult. It is not difficult to prove a word Scandinavian; but, then, we must also show that it is not German as well. A few years back the current opinion was against the doctrine that there was much Danish in England. At present, the tendency is rather the other way. The following facts are from Mr. Garnett.—"Phil. Trans." vol. i.

1. The Saxon name of the present town of Whitby in Yorkshire was Streoneshalch. The present name Whitby, Hvitby, or Whitetown, is Danish.

2. The Saxon name of the capital of Derbyshire was Northweortheg. The present name is Danish.

3. The termination -by = town is Norse.

4. On a monument in Aldburgh church, Holdernesse, in the East Riding of Yorkshire, referred to the age of Edward the Confessor, is found the following inscription:—

Ulf het araeran cyrice for hanum and for Gunthara saula. "Ulf bid rear the church for him and for the soul of Gunthar."

Now, in this inscription, Ulf, in opposition to the Anglo-Saxon Wulf, is a Norse form; whilst hanum is a Norse dative, and by no means an Anglo-Saxon one.—Old Norse hanum, Swedish honom.

5. The use of at for to as the sign of the infinitive mood is Norse, not Saxon. It is the regular prefix in Icelandic, Danish, Swedish, and Feroic. It is also found in the northern dialects of the Old English, and in the particular dialect of Westmoreland at the present day.

6. The use of sum for as; e.g.,—swa sum we forgive oure detturs.

7. Isolated words in the northern dialects are Norse rather than Saxon.

Provincial. Common Dialect. Norse.

Braid Resemble Braas, Swed. Eldin Firing Eld, Dan. Force Waterfall Fors, D. Swed. Gar Make Goera, Swed. Gill Ravine Gil, Iceland. Greet Weep Grata, Iceland. Ket Carrion Kioed—flesh, Dan. Lait Seek Lede, Dan. Lathe Barn Lade, Dan. Lile Little Lille, Dan.

s. 74. Roman of the second period.—Of the Latin introduced under the Christianised Saxon sovereigns, many words are extant. They relate chiefly to ecclesiastical matters, just as the Latin of the Celtic period bore upon military affairs. Mynster, a minster, monasterium; portic, a porch, porticus; cluster, a cloister, claustrum; munuc, a monk, monachus; bisceop, a bishop, episcopus; arcebisceop, archbishop, archiepiscopus; sanct, a saint, sanctus; profost, a provost, propositus; pall, a pall, pallium; calic, a chalice, calix; candel, a candle, candela; psalter, a psalter, psalterium; maesse, a mass, missa; pistel, an epistle, epistola; praedic-ian, to preach, praedicare; prof-ian, to prove, probare.

The following are the names of foreign plants and animals:—camell, a camel, camelus; ylp, elephant, elephas; ficbeam, fig-tree, ficus; feferfuge, feverfew, febrifuga; peterselige, parsley, petroselinum.

Others are the names of articles of foreign origin, as pipor, pepper, piper; purpur, purple, purpura; pumicstan, pumicestone, pumex.

This is the Latin of the second, or Saxon period.

s. 75. The Anglo-Norman element.—For practical purposes we may say that the French or Anglo-Norman element appeared in our language after the battle of Hastings, A.D. 1066.

Previous, however, to that period we find notices of intercourse between the two countries.

1. The residence in England of Louis Outremer.

2. Ethelred II. married Emma, daughter of Richard Duke of Normandy, and the two children were sent to Normandy for education.

3. Edward the Confessor is particularly stated to have encouraged French manners and the French language in England.

4. Ingulphus of Croydon speaks of his own knowledge of French.

5. Harold passed some time in Normandy.

6. The French article la, in the term la Drove, occurs in a deed of A.D. 975.

The chief Anglo-Norman elements of our language are the terms connected with the feudal system, the terms relating to war and chivalry, and a great portion of the law terms—duke, count, baron, villain, service, chivalry, warrant, esquire, challenge, domain, &c.

s. 76. When we remember that the word Norman means man of the north, that it is a Scandinavian, and not a French word, that it originated in the invasions of the followers of Rollo and and other Norwegians, and that just as part of England was overrun by Pagan buccaneers called Danes, part of France was occupied by similar Northmen, we see the likelihood of certain Norse words finding their way into the French language, where they would be superadded to its original Celtic and Roman elements.

The extent to which this is actually the case has only been partially investigated. It is certain, however, that some French words are Norse or Scandinavian. Such, for instance, are several names of geographical localities either near the sea, or the river Seine, in other words, within that tract which was most especially occupied by the invaders. As is to be expected from the genius of the French language, these words are considerably altered in form. Thus,

NORSE. ENGLISH. FRENCH. Toft Toft Tot. Beck Beck Bec. Flot Fleet[33] Fleur, &c.

and in these shapes they appear in the Norman names Yvetot, Caudebec, and Harfleur, &c.

Now any words thus introduced from the Norse of Scandinavia into the French of Normandy, might, by the Norman Conquest of England, be carried further, and so find their way into the English.

In such a case, they would constitute its indirect Scandinavian element.

A list of these words has not been made; indeed the question requires far more investigation than it has met with. The names, however, of the islands Guerns-ey, Jers-ey, and Aldern-ey, are certainly of the kind in question—since the -ey, meaning island, is the same as the -ey in Orkn-ey, and is the Norse rather than the Saxon form.

s. 77. Latin of the third period.—This means the Latin which was introduced between the battle of Hastings and the revival of literature. It chiefly originated in the cloister, in the universities, and, to a certain extent, in the courts of law. It must be distinguished from the indirect Latin introduced as part and parcel of the Anglo-Norman. It has yet to be accurately analyzed.

s. 78. Latin of the fourth period.—This means the Latin which has been introduced between the revival of literature and the present time. It has originated in the writings of learned men in general, and is distinguished from that of the previous periods by:

1. Being less altered in form:

2. Preserving, with substantives, in many cases its original inflections; axis, axes; basis, bases:

3. Relating to objects and ideas for which the increase of the range of science in general has required a nomenclature.

s. 79. Greek.—Words derived directly from the Greek are in the same predicament as the Latin of the third period—phaenomenon, phaenomena; criterion, criteria, &c.; words which are only indirectly of Greek origin, being considered to belong to the language from which they were immediately introduced into the English. Such are deacon, priest, &c., introduced through the Latin. Hence a word like church proves no more in regard to a Greek element in English, than the word abbot proves in respect to a Syrian one.

s. 80. The Latin of the fourth period and the Greek agree in retaining, in many cases, original inflexions rather than adopting the English ones; in other words, they agree in being but imperfectly incorporated. The phaenomenon of imperfect incorporation is reducible to the following rules:—

1. That it has a direct ratio to the date of the introduction, i.e., the more recent the word the more likely it is to retain its original inflexion.

2. That it has a relation to the number of meanings belonging to the words: thus, when a single word has two meanings, the original inflexion expresses one, the English inflexion another—genius, genii, often (spirits), geniuses (men of genius).

3. That it occurs with substantives only, and that only in the expression of number. Thus, although the plural of substantives like axis and genius are Latin, the possessive cases are English. So also are the degrees of comparison for adjectives, like circular, and the tenses, &c. for verbs, like perambulate.

s. 81. The following is a list of the chief Latin substantives introduced during the latter part of the fourth period; and preserving the Latin plural forms—

FIRST CLASS.

Words wherein the Latin plural is the same as the Latin singular.

(a) Sing. Plur. (b) Sing. Plur. Apparatus apparat-us Caries cari-es Hiatus hiat-us Congeries congeri-es Impetus impet-us Series seri-es Species speci-es Superficies superfici-es.

SECOND CLASS.

Words wherein the Latin plural is formed from the Latin singular by changing the last syllable.

(a).—Where the singular termination -a is changed in the plural into -ae:—

Sing. Plur. Sing. Plur. Formul-a formul-ae Nebul-a nebul-ae Lamin-a lamin-ae Scori-a scori-ae. Larv-a larv-ae

(b).—Where the singular termination -us is changed in the plural into -i:—

Sing. Plur. Sing. Plur. Calcul-us calcul-i Polyp-us polyp-i Coloss-us coloss-i Radi-us radi-i Convolvul-us convolvul-i Ranuncul-us ranuncul-i Foc-us foc-i Sarcophag-us sarcophag-i Geni-us geni-i Schirr-us schirrh-i Mag-us mag-i Stimul-us stimul-i Nautil-us nautil-i Tumul-us tumul-i. Oesophag-us oesophag-i

(c).—Where the singular termination -um is changed in the plural into -a:—

Sing. Plur. Sing. Plur. Animalcul-um animalcul-a Mausole-um mausole-a Arcan-um arcan-a Medi-um medi-a Collyri-um collyri-a Memorand-um memorand-a Dat-um dat-a Menstru-um menstru-a Desiderat-um desiderat-a Moment-um moment-a Effluvi-um effluvi-a Premi-um premi-a Empori-um empori-a Scholi-um scholi-a Encomi-um encomi-a Spectr-um spectr-a Errat-um errat-a Specul-um specul-a Gymnasi-um gymnasi-a Strat-um strat-a Lixivi-um lixivi-a Succedane-um succedane-a. Lustr-um lustr-a

(d).—Where the singular termination -is is changed in the plural into -es:—

Sing. Plur. Sing. Plur. Amanuens-is amanuens-es Ellips-is ellips-es Analys-is analys-es Emphas-is emphas-es Antithes-is antithes-es Hypothes-is hypothes-es Ax-is ax-es Oas-is oas-es Bas-is bas-es Parenthes-is parenthes-es Cris-is cris-es Synthes-is synthes-es Diaeres-is diaeres-es Thes-is thes-es.

THIRD CLASS.

Words wherein the plural is formed by inserting -e between the last two sounds of the singular, so that the former number always contains a syllable more than the latter:—

Sing. Plur. Apex sounded apec-s apices Appendix — appendic-s appendices Calix — calic-s calices Cicatrix — cicatric-s cicatrices Helix — helic-s helices Index — indec-s indices Radix — radic-s radices Vertex — vertec-s vertices Vortex — vortec-s vortices.

In all these words the c of the singular number is sounded as k; of the plural, as s.

s. 82. The following is a list of the chief Greek substantives lately introduced, and preserving the Greek plural forms—

FIRST CLASS.

Words where the singular termination -on is changed in the plural into -a:—

Sing. Plur. Sing. Plur. Apheli-on apheli-a Criteri-on criteri-a Periheli-on periheli-a Ephemer-on ephemer-a Automat-on automat-a Phaenomen-on phaenomen-a.

SECOND CLASS.

Words where the plural is formed from the original root by adding either -es or -a, but where the singular rejects the last letter of the original root.

Plurals in -es:—

Original root. Plur. Sing.

Apsid- apsid-es apsis Cantharid- cantharid-es cantharis Chrysalid- chrysalid-es chrysalis Ephemerid- ephemerid-es ephemeris Tripod- tripod-es tripos.

Plurals in -a:—

Original root. Plur. Sing.

Dogmat- dogmat-a dogma Lemmat- lemmat-a lemma Miasmat- miasmat-a miasma.[34]

s. 83. Miscellaneous elements.—Of miscellaneous elements we have two sorts; those that are incorporated in our language, and are currently understood (e.g., the Spanish word sherry, the Arabic word alkali, and the Persian word turban), and those that, even amongst the educated, are considered strangers. Of this latter kind (amongst many others) are the oriental words hummum, kaftan, gul, &c.

Of the currently understood miscellaneous elements of the English language, the most important are from the French; some of which agree with those of the Latin of the fourth period, and the Greek, in preserving the French plural forms—as beau, beaux, billets-doux.

Italian.—Some words of Italian origin do the same; as virtuoso, virtuosi.

Hebrew.—The Hebrew words, cherub and seraph do the same; the form cherub-im, and seraph-im being not only plurals but Hebrew plurals.

Beyond the words derived from these five languages, none form their plural other than after the English method, i.e., in -s, as waltzes, from the German word waltz.

s. 84. Hence we have a measure of the extent to which a language, which, like the English, at one and the same time requires names for many objects, comes in contact with the tongues of half the world, and has moreover, a great power of incorporating foreign elements, derives fresh words from varied sources; as may be seen from the following incomplete notice of the languages which have, in different degrees, supplied it with new terms.

Arabic.—Admiral, alchemist, alchemy, alcohol, alcove, alembic, algebra, alkali, assassin.

Persian.—Turban, caravan, dervise, &c.

Turkish.—Coffee, bashaw, divan, scimitar, janisary, &c.

Hindoo languages.—Calico, chintz, cowrie, curry, lac, muslin, toddy, &c.

Chinese.—Tea, bohea, congou, hyson, soy, nankin &c.

Malay.—Bantam (fowl), gamboge, rattan, sago, shaddock, &c.

Polynesian.—Taboo, tattoo.

Tungusian or some similar Siberian language.—Mammoth, the bones of which are chiefly from the banks of the Lena.

North American Indian.—Squaw, wigwam, pemmican.

Peruvian.—Charki = prepared meat; whence jerked beef.

Caribbean.—Hammock.

s. 85. A distinction is drawn between the direct and indirect, the latter leading to the ultimate origin of words.

Thus a word borrowed into the English from the French, might have been borrowed into the French from the Latin, into the Latin from the Greek, into the Greek from the Persian, &c., and so ad infinitum.

The investigation of this is a matter of literary curiosity rather than any important branch of philology.

The ultimate known origin of many common words sometimes goes back to a great date, and points to extinct languages—

Ancient Nubian.—Barbarous.

Ancient Egyptian.—Ammonia.

Ancient Syrian.—Cyder.

Ancient Lycian.—Pandar.

Ancient Lydian.—Maeander.

Ancient Persian.—Paradise.

s. 86. Again, a word from a given language may be introduced by more lines than one; or it may be introduced twice over; once at an earlier, and again at a later period. In such a case its form will, most probably, vary; and, what is more, its meaning as well. Words of this sort may be called di-morphic, their dimorphism having originated in one of two reasons—a difference of channel or a difference of date. Instances of the first are, syrup, sherbet, and shrub, all originally from the Arabic, srb; but introduced differently, viz., the first through the Latin, the second through the Persian, and the third through the Hindoo. Instances of the second are words like minster, introduced during the Anglo-Saxon, as contrasted with monastery, introduced during the Anglo-Norman period. By the proper application of these processes, we account for words so different in present form, yet so identical in origin, as priest and presbyter, episcopal and bishop, &c.

s. 87. Distinction.—The history of the languages that have been spoken in a particular country, is a different subject from the history of a particular language. The history of the languages that have been spoken in the United States of America, is the history of Indian languages. The history of the language of the United States is the history of a Germanic language.

s. 88. Words of foreign simulating a vernacular origin.—These may occur in any mixed language whatever; they occur, however, oftener in the English than in any other.

Let a word be introduced from a foreign language—let it have some resemblance in sound to a real English term: lastly, let the meanings of the two words be not absolutely incompatible. We may then have a word of foreign origin taking the appearance of an English one. Such, amongst others, are beef-eater, from boeuffetier; sparrow-grass, asparagus; Shotover, Chateauvert;[35] Jerusalem, Girasole;[36] Spanish beefeater, spina bifida; periwig, peruke; runagate, renegade; lutestring, lustrino;[37] O yes, Oyez! ancient, ensign.[38]

Dog-cheap.—This has nothing to do with dogs. The first syllabic is god = good transposed, and the second the ch-p in chapman ( = merchant) cheap, and Eastcheap. In Sir J. Mandeville, we find god-kepe = good bargain.

Sky-larking.—Nothing to do with larks of any sort; still less the particular species, alauda arvensis. The word improperly spelt l-a-r-k, and banished to the slang regions of the English language, is the Anglo-Saxon 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.

s. 89. Sometimes the transformation of the name has engendered a change in the object to which it applies, or, at least, has evolved new ideas in connection with it. How easy for a person who used the words beef-eater, sparrow-grass, or Jerusalem, to believe that the officers designated by the former either eat or used to eat more beef than any other people, that the second word was the name for a grass or herb of which sparrows were fond; and that Jerusalem artichokes came from Palestine.

What has just been supposed has sometimes a real occurrence. To account for the name of Shotover-hill, I have heard that Little John shot over it. Here the confusion, in order to set itself right, breeds a fiction. Again, in chess, the piece now called the queen, was originally the elephant. This was in Persian, ferz. In French it became vierge, which, in time, came to be mistaken for a derivative, and virgo = the virgin, the lady, the queen.

s. 90. Sometimes, where the form of a word in respect to its sound is not affected, a false spirit of accommodation introduces an unetymological spelling; as frontispiece, from frontispecium, sovereign, from sovrano, colleague from collega, lanthorn (old orthography) from lanterna.

The value of forms like these consists in their showing that language is affected by false etymologies as well as by true ones.

* * * * *

s. 91. In lambkin and lancet, the final syllables (-kin and -et) have the same power. They both express the idea of smallness or diminutiveness. These words are but two out of a multitude, the one (lamb) being of Saxon, the other (lance) of Norman origin. The same is the case with the superadded syllables: -kin being Saxon; -et Norman. Now to add a Saxon termination to a Norman word, or vice versâ, is to corrupt the English language.

This leads to some observation respecting the—

s. 92. Introduction of new words and Hybridism.—Hybridism is a term derived from hybrid-a, a mongrel; a Latin word of Greek extraction.

The terminations -ize (as in criticize), -ism (as in criticism), -ic (as in comic)—these, amongst many others, are Greek terminations. To add them to words not of Greek origin is to be guilty of hybridism. Hence, witticism is objectionable.

The terminations -ble (as in penetrable), -bility (as in penetrability), -al (as in parental)—these, amongst many others, are Latin terminations. To add them to words not of Latin origin is to be guilty of hybridism.

Hybridism is the commonest fault that accompanies the introduction of new words. The hybrid additions to the English language are most numerous in works on science.

It must not, however, be concealed that several well established words are hybrid; and that, even in the writings of the classical Roman authors, there is hybridism between the Latin and the Greek.

Nevertheless, the etymological view of every word of foreign origin is, not that it is put together in England, but that it is brought whole from the language to which it is vernacular. Now no derived word can be brought whole from a language unless, in that language, all its parts exist. The word penetrability is not derived from the English word penetrable, by the addition of -ty. It is the Latin word penetrabilitas imported.

In derived words all the parts must belong to one and the same language, or, changing the expression, every derived word must have a possible form in the language from which it is taken. Such is the rule against hybridism.

s. 93. A true word sometimes takes the appearance of a hybrid without really being so. The -icle, in icicle, is apparently the same as the -icle in radicle. Now, as ice is Gothic, and -icle classical, hybridism is simulated. Icicle, however, is not a derivative but a compound; its parts being is and gicel, both Anglo-Saxon words.[39]

s. 94. On incompletion of the radical.—Let there be in a given language a series of roots ending in -t, as saemat. Let a euphonic influence eject the -t, as often as the word occurs in the nominative case. Let the nominative case be erroneously considered to represent the root, or radical, of the word. Let a derivative word be formed accordingly, i.e., on the notion that the nominative form and the radical form coincide. Such a derivative will exhibit only a part of the root; in other words, the radical will be incomplete.

Now all this is what actually takes place in words like haemo-ptysis (spitting of blood), sema-phore (a sort of telegraph). The Greek imparisyllabics eject a part of the root in the nominative case; the radical forms being haemat- and saemat-, not haem-and saem-.

Incompletion of the radical is one of the commonest causes of words being coined faultily. It must not, however, be concealed, that even in the classical writers, we have in words like [Greek: distomos] examples of incompletion of the radical.

* * * * *

s. 95. The preceding chapters have paved the way for a distinction between the historical analysis of a language, and the logical analysis of one.

Let the present language of England (for illustration's sake only) consist of 40,000 words. Of these let 30,000 be Anglo-Saxon, 5,000 Anglo-Norman, 100 Celtic, 10 Latin of the first, 20 Latin of the second, and 30 Latin of the third period, 50 Scandinavian, and the rest miscellaneous. In this case the language is considered according to the historical origin of the words that compose it, and the analysis is an historical analysis.

But it is very evident that the English, or any other language, is capable of being contemplated in another view, and that the same number of words may be very differently classified. Instead of arranging them according to the languages whence they are derived, let them be disposed according to the meanings that they convey. Let it be said, for instance, that out of 40,000 words, 10,000 are the names of natural objects, that 1000 denote abstract ideas, that 1000 relate to warfare, 1000 to church matters, 500 to points of chivalry, 1000 to agriculture, and so on through the whole. In this case the analysis is not historical but logical; the words being classed not according to their origin, but according to their meaning.

Now the logical and historical analyses of a language generally in some degree coincide; that is, terms for a certain set of ideas come from certain languages; just as in English a large proportion of our chemical terms are Arabic, whilst a still larger one of our legal ones are Anglo-Norman.

* * * * *

CHAPTER II.

THE RELATION OF THE ENGLISH TO THE ANGLO-SAXON, AND THE STAGES OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.

s. 96. The relation of the present English to the Anglo-Saxon is that of a modern language to an ancient one: the words modern and ancient being used in a defined and technical sense.

Let the word smidhum illustrate this. Smidh-um, the dative plural of smidh, is equivalent in meaning to the English to smiths; or to the Latin fabr-is. Smidhum, however, is a single Anglo-Saxon word (a substantive, and nothing more); whilst its English equivalent is two words (i.e., a substantive with the addition of a preposition). The letter s, in smiths, shows that the word is plural. The -um, in smidhum, does this and something more. It is the sign of the dative case plural. The -um in smidhum, is the part of a word. The preposition to is a separate word with an independent existence. Smidhum is the radical syllable smidh + the subordinate inflectional syllable -um, the sign of the dative case. The combination to smiths is the substantive smiths + the preposition to, equivalent in power to the sign of a dative case, but different from it in form. As far, then, as the words just quoted is concerned, the Anglo-Saxon differs from the English by expressing an idea by a certain modification of the form of the root, whereas the modern English denotes the same idea by the addition of a preposition; in other words, the Saxon inflection is superseded by a combination of words.

The sentences in italics are mere variations of the same general statement. 1. The earlier the stage of a given language the greater the amount of its inflectional forms, and the later the stage of a given language, the smaller the amount of them. 2. As languages become modern they substitute prepositions and auxiliary verbs for cases and tenses. 3. The amount of inflection is in the inverse proportion to the amount of prepositions and auxiliary verbs. 4. In the course of time languages drop their inflections, and substitute in its stead circumlocutions by means of prepositions, &c. The reverse never takes place. 5. Given two modes of expression, the one inflectional (smidhum), the other circumlocutional[40] (to smiths), we can state that the first belongs to an early, the second to a late, state of language.

The present chapter, then showing the relation of the English to the Anglo-Saxon, shows something more. It exhibits the general relation of a modern to an ancient language. As the English is to the Anglo-Saxon, so are the Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian, to the old Norse; and so are the French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanese and Wallachian to the Latin, and the Romaic to the ancient Greek.

s. 97. Contrasted with the English, the Anglo-Saxon has (among others) the following differences.

NOUNS.

1. Gender.—In Anglo-Saxon there were three genders, the masculine, the feminine, and the neuter. With adjectives each gender had its peculiar declension. With substantives also there were appropriate terminations, though only to a certain degree.

2. The definite article varied with the gender of its substantive; thaet eage, the eye; se steorra, the star; seo tunge, the tongue.

3. Number.—The plural form in -en (as in oxen), rare in English, was common in Anglo-Saxon. It was the regular termination of a whole declension; e.g., 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; smidhas, smiths.

4. Case.—Of these the Saxons had, for their substantives, at least three; viz., the nominative, dative, genitive. With the pronouns and adjectives there was a true accusative form; and with a few especial words an ablative or instrumental one. Smidh, a smith; smidhe, to a smith; smidhes, of a smith. Plural, smidhas, smiths; smidhum, to smiths; smidha, of smiths: he, he; hine, him; him, to him; his, his; se, the; tha, the; thy, with the; tham, to the; thaes, of the.

5. Declension.—In Anglo-Saxon it was necessary to determine the declension of a substantive. There was the weak, or simple declension for words ending in a vowel (as, eage, steorra, tunga), and the strong declension for words ending in a consonant (smidh, spraec, 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 smidh and spraec.

6. Definite and indefinite form of adjectives.—In Anglo-Saxon each adjective had two forms, one definite and one indefinite. There is nothing of this kind in English. We say a good sword, and the good sword equally. In Anglo-Saxon, however, the first combination would be se gode sweord, the second 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 threo, had a fuller declension than they have at present.

VERBS.

8. Mood.—The subjunctive mood that in the present English (with one exception[41]) differs from the indicative only in the third person singular, was in Anglo-Saxon considerably different from the indicative.

Indicative Mood.

Pres. Sing. 1. Lufige. Plur. 1. } 2. Lufast. 2. } Lufiadh. 3. Lufadh. 3. }

Subjunctive Mood.

Pres. Sing. 1. } Plur. 1. } 2. } Lufige 2. } Lufion. 3. } 3. }

The Saxon infinitive ended in -an (lufian), and besides this there was a so-called gerundial form, to lufigenne.

Besides these there were considerable differences in respect to particular words; but of these no notice is taken; the object being to indicate the differences between the ancient and modern stages of a language in respect to grammatical structure.

9. To bring about these changes a certain amount of time is, of course, necessary; a condition which suggests the difficult question as to the rate at which languages change. This is different for different languages; but as the investigation belongs to general philology rather than to the particular history of the English language, it finds no place here.

s. 98. The extent, however, to which external causes may accelerate or retard philological changes, is not foreign to our subject; the influence of the Norman Conquest, upon the previous Anglo-Saxon foundation, being a problem of some difficulty.

At the first glance it seems to have been considerable, especially in the way of simplifying the grammar. Yet the accuracy of this view is by no means unequivocal. The reasons against it are as follows:

a. In Friesland no such conquest took place. Yet the modern Frisian, as compared with the ancient, is nearly as simple in its grammatical structure, as the English is when compared with the Anglo-Saxon.

b. In Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, no such conquest took place. Yet the modern Danish and Swedish, as compared with the Old Norse, are nearly as simple in their grammatical structure, as the English is, when compared with the Anglo-Saxon.

The question requires more investigation than it has met with.

An extract from Mr. Hallam's "History of Literature" closes the present section, and introduces the next.

"Nothing can be more difficult, except by an arbitrary line, than to determine the commencement of the English language; not so much, as in those on the Continent, because we are in want of materials, but rather from an opposite reason, the possibility of showing a very gradual succession of verbal changes that ended in a change of denomination. We should probably experience a similar difficulty, if we knew equally well the current idiom of France or Italy in the seventh and eighth centuries. For when we compare the earliest English of the thirteenth century with the Anglo-Saxon of the twelfth, it seems hard to pronounce why it should pass for a separate language, rather than a modification or simplification of the former. We must conform, however, to usage, and say that the Anglo-Saxon was converted into English:—1. By contracting and otherwise modifying the pronunciation and orthography of words. 2. By omitting many inflections, especially of the noun, and consequently making more use of articles and auxiliaries. 3. By the introduction of French derivatives. 4. By using less inversion and ellipsis, especially in poetry. Of these, the second alone, I think, can be considered as sufficient to describe a new form of language; and this was brought about so gradually, that we are not relieved from much of our difficulty, as to whether some compositions shall pass for the latest offspring of the mother, or the earlier fruits of the daughter's fertility. It is a proof of this difficulty that the best masters of our ancient language have lately introduced the word Semi-Saxon, which is to cover everything from A.D. 1150 to A.D. 1250."—Chapter i. 47.

s. 99. This shows that by the middle of the 12th century, the Anglo-Saxon of the standard Anglo-Saxon authors, had undergone such a change as to induce the scholars of the present ago to denominate it, not Saxon, but Semi-Saxon. It had ceased to be genuine Saxon, but had not yet become English.

Some, amongst others, of the earlier changes of the standard Anglo-Saxon are,

1. The substitution of -an for -as, in the plural of substantives, munucan for munucas (monks); and, conversely, the substitution of -s for -n, as steorres for steorran (stars).

2. The ejection or shortening of final vowels, thaet ylc for thaet ylce; sone for sunu; name for nama; dages for dagas.

3. The substitution of -n for -m in the dative case, hwilon for hwilum.

4. The ejection of the -n of the infinitive mood, cumme for cuman (to come), nemne for nemnen (to name).

5. The ejection of -en in the participle passive, I-hote for gehaten (called, hight).

6. The gerundial termination -enne, superseded by the infinitive termination -en; as to lufian for to lufienne, or lufigenne.

7. The substitution of -en for -adh in the persons plural of verbs; hi clepen (they call) for hi clypiadh, &c.

The preponderance (not the occasional occurrence) of forms like those above constitute Semi-Saxon in contradistinction to standard Saxon, classical Saxon, or Anglo-Saxon proper.

s. 100. Old English stage.—Further changes convert Semi-Saxon into Old English. Some, amongst others, are the following:—

1. The ejection of the dative plural termination -um, and the substitution of the preposition to and the plural sign -s; as to smiths for smidhum. Of the dative singular the -e is retained (ende, worde); but it is by no means certain that, although recognized in writing, it was equally recognized in pronunciation also.

2. The ejection of -es in the genitive singular whenever the preposition of came before it; Godes love (God's love), but the love of God, and not the love of Godes.

3. The syllable -es as a sign of the genitive case extended to all genders and to all declensions; heart's for heortan; sun's for sunnan.

4. The same in respect to the plural number; sterres for steorran; sons for suna.

5. The ejection of -na in the genitive plural; as of tunges for tungena.

6. The use of the word the, as an article, instead of se, &c.

The preponderance of the forms above (and not their mere occasional occurrence) constitutes Old English in contradistinction to Semi-Saxon.

s. 101. In the Old English the following forms predominate.

1. A fuller inflection of the demonstrative pronoun, or definite article; than, thenne, thaere, tham;—in contradistinction to the Middle English.

2. The presence of the dative singular in -e; ende, smithe.

3. The existence of a genitive plural in -r or -ra; heora, theirs; aller, of all. This, with substantives and adjectives, is less common.

4. The substitution of heo for they, of heora for their, of hem for them.

5. A more frequent use of min and thin, for my and thy;—in contradistinction to both Middle and Modern English.

6. The use of heo for she;—in contradistinction to Middle and Modern English and Old Lowland Scotch.

7. The use of broader vowels; as in iclepud or iclepod (for icleped or yclept); geongost, youngest; ascode, asked; eldore, elder.

8. The use of the strong preterits (see the chapter on the tenses of verbs), where in the present English the weak form is found—wex, wop, dalf, for waxed, wept, delved.

9. The omission not only of the gerundial termination -enne, but also of the infinitive sign -en after to; to honte, to speke;—in contradistinction to Semi-Saxon.

10. The substitution of -en for -eth or -edh, in the first and second persons plural of verbs; we wollen, we will: heo schullen, they should.

11. The comparative absence of the articles se and seo.

12. The substitution of ben and beeth, for synd and syndon = we, ye, they are.

s. 102. Concerning the extent to which the Anglo-Norman was used, I retail the following statements and quotations.

1. "Letters even of a private nature were written in Latin till the beginning of the reign of Edward I., soon after 1270, when a sudden change brought in the use of French."—Mr. Hallam, communicated by Mr. Stevenson (Literature of Europe, i. 52, and note).

2. Conversation between the members of the Universities was ordered to be carried on either in Latin or French:—"Si qua inter se proferant, colloquio Latino vel saltem Gallico perfruantur."—Statutes of Oriel College, Oxford.—Hallam, ibid. from Warton.

3. "The Minutes of the Corporation of London, recorded in the Town Clerk's Office, were in French, as well as the Proceedings in Parliament, and in the Courts of Justice."—Ibid.

4. "In Grammar Schools, boys were made to construe their Latin into French."—Ibid. "Pueri in scholis, contra morem caeterarum nationum, et Normannorum adventu, derelicto proprio vulgari, construere Gallice compelluntur. Item quod filii nobilium ab ipsis cunabulorum crepundiis ad Gallicum idioma informantur. Quibus profecto rurales homines assimulari volentes, ut per hoc spectabiliores videantur, Francigenari satagunt omni nisu."—Higden (Ed. Gale, p. 210).

s. 103. The reigns of Edward III., and Richard II., may be said to form a transition from the Old to the Middle; those of Mary and Elizabeth from the Middle to the New, Recent or Modern English. No very definite line of demarcation, however, can be drawn.

s. 104. The present tendencies of the English may be determined by observation: and as most of them will be noticed in the etymological part of this volume, the few here indicated must be looked upon as illustrations only.

1. The distinction between the subjunctive and indicative mood is likely to pass away. We verify this by the very general tendency to say if it is, and if he speaks, rather than if it be, and if he speak.

2. The distinction between the participle passive and the past tense is likely to pass away. We verify this by the tendency to say it is broke, and he is smote, for it is broken and he is smitten.

3. Of the double forms, sung and sang, drank and drunk, &c., one only will be the permanent.

As stated above, these tendencies are but a few out of many, and have been adduced in order to indicate the subject rather than to exhaust it.

* * * * *

QUESTIONS.

1. Classify the Celtic elements of the English language.

2. Enumerate the chief periods during which words from the Latin were introduced into English, and classify the Latin elements accordingly.

3. What words were introduced directly by the Danes, Scandinavians, or Norsemen? What indirectly? Through what language did these latter come?

4. Give the dates of the Battle of Hastings, and of the reigns of Louis Outremer, Ethelred II, and Edward the Confessor. What was the amount of Norman-French elements in England anterior to the Conquest?

5. Give the languages from whence the following words were introduced into the English—flannel, jerked (as to beef), hammock, apparatus, waltz, Seraph, plaid, street, muslin.

6. Distinguish between the direct, indirect, and ultimate origin of introduced words. What words have we in English which are supposed to have originated in the Ancient Aegyptian, the Syrian, and the languages of Asia Minor?

7. Under what different forms do the following words appear in English—monasterium, [Greek: presbuteros], [Greek: episkopos]. Account for these differences. Syrup, shrub, and sherbet, all originate from the same word. Explain the present difference.

8. Give the direct origin (i.e., the languages from which they were immediately introduced) of—Druid, epistle, chivalry, cyder, maeander. Give the indirect origin of the same.

9. Investigate the process by which a word like sparrow-grass, apparently of English origin, is, in reality, derived from the Latin word asparagus. Point out the incorrectness in the words frontispiece, colleague, and lanthorn.

10. To what extent may Norse, and to what extent may Celtic words, not found in the current language of English, be found in the provincial dialects?

11. What were the original names of the towns Whitby and Derby? From what language are the present names derived? Give the reason for your answer.

12. Show the extent to which the logical and historical analyses coincide in respect to the words introduced from the Roman of the second period, the Arabic, the Anglo-Norman, and the Celtic of the current English.

13. What are the plural forms of criterion, axis, genius, index, dogma? When is a word introduced from a foreign language perfectly, when imperfectly incorporated with the language into which it is imported? Is the following expression correct—the cherubim that singeth aloft? If not, why?

14. What is there exceptionable in the words semaphore (meaning a sort of telegraph), and witticism. Give the etymologies of the words icicle, radicle, and radical.

15. What are the singular forms of cantharides, phaenomena, and data?

16. What are the stages of the English language? How does the present differ from the older ones?

17. Exhibit in detail the inflections of the Anglo-Saxon a) noun, and b) verb, which are not found in the present English. What is the import of the loss of inflections, and their replacement by separate words? What is the nature of such words in nouns? What in verbs?

18. Contrast the syntax of the Anglo-Saxon with the Modern English adjective. What is the English for the Anglo-Saxon words wit, unc, incer?

19. Express, in general terms, the chief points wherein a modern language differs from an ancient one: or, rather, the points wherein the different stages of the same language differ.

20. Investigate the influence of the Norman Conquest on the English. Explain the terms Semi-Saxon, Old English, and Middle English. Compare the stages of the English with those of the other Gothic tongues.

21. Give the Modern English for the following forms and expressions—munucas, steorran, to lufienne. What are the Anglo-Saxon forms of munucan, steorres, i-hotte, clepen? Translate the Latin word omnium (genitive plural of omnis) into Old English. Translate the Greek [Greek: ho], [Greek: he], [Greek: to] into Anglo-Saxon, Old English, and Modern English.

22. Investigate the extent to which the Anglo-Norman superseded the Anglo-Saxon subsequent to the Conquest. Is any further change in the grammatical structure of our language probable? If so, what do you consider will be the nature of it?

* * * * *

PART III.

SOUNDS, LETTERS, PRONUNCIATION, SPELLING.

* * * * *

CHAPTER I.

GENERAL NATURE AND CERTAIN PROPERTIES OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS.

s. 105. To two points connected with the subject of the following chapter, the attention of the reader is requested.

a. In the comparison of sounds the ear is liable to be misled by the eye. Thus—

The syllables ka and ga are similar syllables. The vowel is in each the same, and the consonant is but slightly different. Hence the words ka and ga are more allied to each other than the words ka and ba, ka and ta, &c., because the consonantal sounds of k and g are more allied than the consonantal sounds of k and b, k and t.

Comparing the syllables ga and ka, we see the affinity between the sounds, and we see it at the first glance. It lies on the surface, and strikes the ear at once.

It is, however, very evident that ways might be devised or might arise from accident, of concealing the likeness between the two sounds, or, at any rate, of making it less palpable. One of such ways would be a faulty mode of spelling. If instead of ga we wrote gha the following would be the effect: the syllable would appear less simple than it really was; it would look as if it consisted of three parts instead of two, and consequently its affinity to ka would seem less than it really was. It is perfectly true that a little consideration would tell us that, as long as the sound remained the same, the relation of the two syllables remained the same also; and that, if the contrary appeared to be the case, the ear was misled by the eye. Still a little consideration would be required. Now in the English language we have (amongst others) the following modes of spelling that have a tendency to mislead;—

The sounds of ph and of f, in Philip and fillip, differ to the eye, but to the ear are identical. Here a difference is simulated.

The sounds of th in thin, and of th in thine, differ to the ear but to the eye seem the same. Here a difference is concealed.

Furthermore. These last sounds appear to the eye to be double or compound. This is not the case; they are simple single sounds, and not the sounds of t followed by h, as the spelling leads us to imagine.

b. Besides improper modes of spelling, there is another way of concealing the true nature of sounds. If I say that ka and ga are allied, the alliance is manifest; since I compare the actual sounds. If I say ka and gee are allied, the alliance is concealed; since I compare, not the actual sounds, but only the names of the letters that express those sounds. Now in the English language we have (amongst others) the following names of letters that have a tendency to mislead:—

The sounds fa and va are allied. The names eff and vee conceal this alliance.

The sounds sa and za are allied. The names ess and zed conceal the alliance.

In comparing sounds it is advisable to have nothing to do either with letters or names of letters. Compare the sounds themselves.

s. 106. In many cases it is sufficient, in comparing consonants, to compare syllables that contain those consonants; e.g., in order to determine the relations of p, b, f, v, we say pa, ba, fa, va; or for those of s and z, we say sa, za. Here we compare syllables, each consonant being followed by a vowel. At times this is insufficient. We are often obliged to isolate the consonant from its vowel, and bring our organs to utter (or half utter) the imperfect sounds of p', b', t', d'.

s. 107. Let any of the vowels (for instance, the a in father) be sounded. The lips, the tongue, and the parts within the throat remain in the same position; and as long as these remain in the same position the sound is that of the vowel under consideration. Let, however, a change take place in the position of the organs of sound; let, for instance, the lips be closed, or the tongue be applied to the front part of the mouth: in that case the vowel sound is cut short. It undergoes a change. It terminates in a sound that is different, according to the state of those organs whereof the position has been changed. If, on the vowel in question, the lips be closed, there then arises an imperfect sound of b or p. If on the other hand, the tongue be applied to the front teeth, or to the forepart of the palate, the sound is one (more or less imperfect) of t or d. This fact illustrates the difference between the vowels and the consonants. It may be verified by pronouncing the a in fate, ee in feet, oo in book, o in note, &c.

It is a further condition in the formation of a vowel sound, that the passage of the breath be uninterrupted. In the sound of the l' in lo (isolated from its vowel) the sound is as continuous as it is with the a in fate. Between, however, the consonant l and the vowel a there is this difference: with a, the passage of the breath is uninterrupted; with l, the tongue is applied to the palate, breaking or arresting the passage of the breath.

s. 108. The primary division of our articulate sounds is into vowels and consonants. The latter are again divided into liquids (l, m, n, r) and mutes (p, b, f, v, t, d, k, g, s, z, &c.).

s. 109. Sharp and flat.—Take the sounds of p, f, t, k, s. Isolate them from their vowels, and pronounce them. The sound is the sound of a whisper.

Let b, v, d, g, z, be similarly treated. The sound is no whisper, but one at the natural tone of our voice.

Now p, f, t, k, s (with some others that will be brought forward anon) are sharp, whilst b, v, &c., are flat. Instead of sharp, some say hard, and instead of flat, some say soft. The terms sonant and surd are, in a scientific point of view, the least exceptionable. They have, however, the disadvantage of being pedantic. The tenues of the classics (as far as they go) are sharp, the mediae flat.

s. 110. Continuous and explosive.—Isolate the sounds of b, p, t, d, k, g. Pronounce them. You have no power of prolonging the sounds, or of resting upon them. They escape with the breath, and they escape at once.

It is not so with f, v, sh, zh. Here the breath is transmitted by degrees, and the sound can be drawn out and prolonged for an indefinite space of time. Now b, p, t, &c., are explosive, f, v, &c., continuous.

s. 111. Concerning the vowels, we may predicate a) that they are all continuous, b) that they are all flat.

Concerning the liquids, we may predicate a) that they are all continuous, b) that they are all flat.

Concerning the mutes, we may predicate a) that one half of them is flat, and the other half sharp, and b) that some are continuous, and that others are explosive.

s. 112.—The letter h is no articulate sound, but only a breathing.

* * * * *

CHAPTER II.

SYSTEM OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS.

s. 113.—The attention of the reader is now directed to the following foreign vowel sounds.

1. The 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, ue of the Germans, y of the Danes.—This sound is intermediate to the ee in feet, and the oo in book.

3. The o chiuso, of the Italians.—Intermediate to the o in note, and the oo in book.

For these sounds we have the following sequences: a in fate, é fermé, ee in feet, ue in uebel (German), oo in book, o chiuso, o in note. And this is the true order of alliance among the vowels; a in fate, and o in note, being the extremes; the other sounds being transitional or intermediate. As the English orthography is at once singular and faulty, it exhibits the relationship but imperfectly.

s. 114. The system of the mutes.—Preliminary to the consideration of the system of the mutes, let it be observed:—

1. that the th in thin is a simple single sound, different from the th in thine, and that it may be expressed by the sign th.

2. That the th in thine is a simple single sound, different from the th in thin, and that it may be expressed by the sign dh.

3. That the sh in shine is a simple single sound, and that it may be expressed by the sign [sigma][42] (Greek [Greek: sigma]).

4. That the z in azure, glazier (French j) is a simple single sound, and that it may be expressed by the sign [zeta][42] (Greek [Greek: zeta]).

5. That in the Laplandic, and possibly in many other languages, there are two peculiar sounds, different from any in English, German, and French, &c., and that they may respectively be expressed by the sign [kappa] and the sign [gamma][42] (Greek [Greek: kappa] and [Greek: gamma]).

s. 115. With these preliminary notices we may exhibit the system of the sixteen mutes; having previously determined the meaning of two fresh terms, and bearing in mind what was said concerning the words sharp and flat, continuous and explosive.

Lene and aspirate.—From the sound of p in pat, the sound of f in fat differs in a certain degree. This difference is not owing to a difference in their sharpness or flatness. Each is sharp. Neither is it owing to a difference in their continuity or explosiveness; although f is continuous, whilst p is explosive. This we may ascertain by considering the position of s. The sound of s is continuous; yet s, in respect to the difference under consideration, is classed not with f the continuous sound but with p the explosive one. This difference, which has yet to be properly elucidated, is expressed by a particular term; and p is called lene, f is called aspirate.

As f is to p so is v to b. As v is to b so is th to t. As th is to t so is dh to d. As dh is to d so is [kappa] to k. As [kappa] is to k so is [gamma] to g. As [gamma] is to g so is [sigma] to s. As [sigma] is to s so is [zeta] to z.

Hence p, b, t, d, k, g, s, z, are lene; f, v, th, dh, [kappa], [gamma], [sigma], [zeta], are aspirate. Also p, f, t, th, k, [kappa], s, [sigma], are sharp, whilst b, v, d, dh, g, [gamma], z, [zeta], are flat; so that there is a double series of relationship capable of being expressed as follows:—

Lene. Aspirate. Sharp. Flat. Sharp. Flat. Sharp. Flat. Lene. Aspirate. Lene. Aspirate. p b f v p f b v t d th dh t th d dh k g [kappa] [gamma] k [kappa] g [gamma] s z [sigma] [zeta] s [sigma] z [zeta]

All the so-called aspirates are continuous; and, with the exception of s and z, all the lenes are explosive.

s. 116. I believe that in the fact of each mute appearing in a four-fold form (i.e., sharp, or flat, lene, or aspirate), lies the essential character of the mutes as opposed to the liquids.

s. 117. Y and w.—These sounds, respectively intermediate to [gamma] and i (the ee in feet), and to v and u (oo in book), form a transition from the vowels to the consonants.

s. 118. The French word roi, and the English words oil, house, are specimens of a fresh class of articulations; viz., of compound vowel sounds or diphthongs. The diphthong oi is the vowel o + the semivowel y. The diphthongal sound in roi is the vowel o + the semivowel w. In roi the semivowel element precedes, in oil it follows.

s. 119. The words quoted indicate the nature of the diphthongal system.

1. Diphthongs with the semivowel w, a) preceding, as in the French word roi, b) following, as in the English word new.

2. Diphthongs with the semivowel y, a) preceding, as is common in the languages of the Lithuanic and Slavonic stocks, b) following, as in the word oil.

3. Triphthongs with a semivowel both preceding and following.

The diphthongs in English are four; ow as in house, ew as in new, oi as in oil, i as in bite, fight.

s. 120. Chest, jest.—Here we have compound consonantal sounds. The ch in chest = t + sh; the j in jest = d + zh. I believe that in these combinations one or both the elements, viz., t and sh, d and zh, are modified; but I am unable to state the exact nature of this modification.

s. 121. Ng.—The sound of the ng in sing, king, throng, when at the end of a word, or of singer, ringing, &c., in the middle of a word, is not the natural sound of the combination n and g, each letter retaining its natural power and sound; but a simple single sound, for which the combination ng is a conventional mode of expression.

s. 122. Compared with a in fate, and the o in note, a in father, and the aw in bawl, are broad; the vowels of note and fate being slender.

s. 123. In fat, the vowel is, according to common parlance, short; in fate, it is long. Here we have the introduction of two fresh terms. For the words long and short, I substitute independent and dependent. If from the word fate I separate the final consonantal sound, the syllable fa remains. In this syllable the a has precisely the sound that it had before. It remains unaltered. The removal of the consonant has in nowise modified its sound or power. It is not so, however, with the vowel in the word fat. If from this I remove the consonant following, and so leave the a at the end of the syllable, instead of in the middle, I must do one of two things: I must sound it either as the a in fate, or else as the a in father. Its (so-called) short sound it cannot retain, unless it be supported by a consonant following. For this reason it is dependent. The same is the case with all the so-called short sounds, viz., the e in bed, i in fit, u in bull, o in not, u in but.

s. 124. It is not every vowel that is susceptible of every modification. I (ee) and u (oo) are incapable of becoming broad. The e in bed, although both broad and slender, is incapable of becoming independent. For the u in but, and for the oe of certain foreign languages, I have no satisfactory systematic position.

s. 125. Vowel System.

Broad. Slender. Independent. Independent. Dependent. a, in father a, in fate a, in fat. é in fermé, é, in fermé, long short. e, in meine, Germ. e, in bed. ee, in feet i, pit. ue, of the German, the same, short. long oo, in book ou, in could. o in chiuso the same, short. aw, in bawl o, in note o, in not.

From these the semivowels w and y make a transition to the consonants v and the so-called aspirate of g, respectively.

s. 126. System of Consonants.

Liquids. Mutes. Semivowels.

Lene. Aspirate. Sharp. Flat. Sharp. Flat. m p v f v w n t d th dh . l k g [kappa] [gamma] y r s z [sigma] [zeta] .

n is doubled in unnatural, innate, oneness. l — soulless, civil-list, palely. k — book-case. t — seaport-town.

It must not, however, be concealed, that, in the mouths even of correct speakers, one of the doubled sounds is often dropped.

s. 132. True aspirates rare.—The criticism applied to words like pitted, &c., applies also to words like Philip, thin, thine, &c. There is therein no sound of h. How the so-called aspirates differ from their corresponding lenes has not yet been determined. That it is not by the addition of h is evident. Ph and th are conventional modes of spelling simple single sounds, which might better be expressed by simple single signs.

In our own language the true aspirates, like the true reduplications, are found only in compound words; and there they are often slurred in the pronunciation.

We find p and h in the words haphazard, upholder. — b and h — abhorrent, cub-hunting. — f and h — knife-handle, off hand. — v and h — stave-head. — d and h — adhesive, childhood. — t and h — nuthook. — th and h — withhold. — k and h — inkhorn, bakehouse. — g and h — gig-horse. — s and h — race-horse, falsehood. — z and h — exhibit, exhort. — r and h — perhaps. — l and h — wellhead, foolhardy. — m and h — Amherst. — n and h — unhinge, inherent, unhappy.

* * * * *

CHAPTER IV.

EUPHONY AND THE PERMUTATION OF LETTERS.

s. 133. 1. Let there be two syllables of which the one ends in m, and the other begins with r, as we have in the syllables num- and -rus of the Latin word numerus.

2. Let an ejection of the intervening letters bring these two syllables into immediate contact, numrus. The m and r form an unstable combination. To remedy this there is a tendency to insert an intervening sound.

In English, the form which the Latin word numerus takes is number; in Spanish, nombre. The b makes no part of the original word, but has been inserted for the sake of euphony; or, to speak more properly, by a euphonic process. The word euphony is derived from [Greek: eu] (well), and [Greek: phone] (fônae, a voice).

s. 134. In the words give and gave we have a change of tense expressed by a change of vowel. In the words price and prize a change of meaning is expressed by a change of consonant. In clothe and clad there is a change both of a vowel and of a consonant. In the words to use and a use there is a similar change, although it is not expressed by the spelling. To the ear the verb to use ends in z, although not to the eye. All these are instances of the permutation of letters.

Permutation of Vowels.

a to ĕ, as man, men. a to oo, as stand, stood. a to u, as dare, durst. a to ē, as was, were. ea to o, as speak, spoken. ea = ĕ to ea = ē, as breath, breathe. ee to ĕ, as deep, depth. ea to o, as bear, bore. i to a, as spin, span. i to u, as spin, spun. ī = ei to o, as smite, smote. i = ei to ĭ, as smite, smitten. i to a, as give, gave. i = ei to a, as rise, raise. ĭ 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. ŏ to e, as brother, brethren. ō = oo to i, as do, did. o = oo to o = ŭ, as do, done. oo to o, as choose, chose.

Permutation of Consonants.

f to v, life, live; calf, calves. th to dh, breath, to breathe. th to d, seethe, sod; clothe, clad. d to t, build, built. s to z, use, to use. s to r, was, were; lose, forlorn.

In have and had we have the ejection of a sound; in work and wrought, the transposition of one.

Permutation of Combinations.

ie = i to ow, as grind, ground. ow to i = ei, as mouse, mice; cow, kine. ink to augh, as drink, draught. ing to ough, as bring, brought. y (formerly g), to ough, as buy, bought. igh = ei to ough, as fight, fought. eek to ough, as seek, sought.

It must be noticed that the list above is far from being an exhaustive one. The expression too of the changes undergone has been rendered difficult on account of the imperfection of our orthography. The whole section has been written in illustration of the meaning of the word permutation, rather than for any specific object in grammar.

* * * * *

CHAPTER V.

ON THE FORMATION OF SYLLABLES.

s. 135. In respect to the formation of syllables, I am aware of no more than one point that requires any especial consideration.

In certain words, of more than one syllable, it is difficult to say to which syllable an intervening consonant belongs. For instance, does the v in river, and the e in fever, belong to the first or the second syllable? Are the words to be divided thus, ri-ver, fe-ver? or thus, riv-er, feve-r?

The solution of the question lies by no means on the surface.

In the first place, the case is capable of being viewed in two points of view—an etymological and a phonetic one.

That the c and r in become, berhymed, &c., belong to the second syllable, we determine at once by taking the words to pieces; whereby we get the words come and rhymed in an isolated independent form. But this fact, although it settles the point in etymology, leaves it as it was in phonetics; since it in nowise follows, that, because the c in the simple word come is exclusively attached to the letter that succeeds, it is, in the compound word become, exclusively attached to it also.

To the following point of structure in the consonantal sounds the reader's attention is particularly directed.

1. Let the vowel a (as in fate) be sounded.—2. Let it be followed by the consonant p, so as to form the syllable āp. 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 āp 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 āp is a final sound. With initial sounds the case is different. Let the lips be closed, and let an attempt be made to form the syllable pa by suddenly opening them. The sound appears incomplete; but its incompleteness is at the beginning of the sound, and not at the end of it. In the natural course of things there would have been a current of breath preceding, and this current would have given a vibration, now wanting. All the sound that is formed here is formed, not by the arrest of breath, but by the escape of it.

I feel that this account of the mechanism of the apparently simple sound p, labours under all the difficulties that attend the description of a sound; and for this reason I again request the reader to satisfy himself either of its truth or of its inaccuracy, before he proceeds to the conclusions that will be drawn from it.

The account, however, being recognized, we have in the sound of p, two elements:—

1. That formed by the current of air and the closure of the lips, as in ap. This may be called the sound of breath arrested.

2. That formed by the current of air, and the opening of the lips, as in pa. This may be called the sound of breath escaping.

Now what may be said of p may be said of all the other consonants, the words tongue, teeth, &c., being used instead of lips, according to the case.

Let the sound of breath arrested be expressed by [pi], and that of breath escaping be expressed by [varpi], the two together form p ([pi] + [varpi] = p).

Thus ap (as quoted above) is p - [varpi], or [pi]; whilst pa (sounded similarly) is p - [pi], or [varpi].

In the formation of syllables, I consider that the sound of breath arrested belongs to the first, and the sound of breath escaping to the second syllable; that if each sound were expressed by a separate sign, the word happy would be divided thus, ha[pi]-[varpi]y; and that such would be the case with all consonants between two syllables. The whole consonant belongs neither to one syllable nor the other. Half of it belongs to each. The reduplication of the p in happy, the t in pitted, &c., is a mere point of spelling.

* * * * *

CHAPTER VI.

ON QUANTITY.

s. 136. The dependent vowels, as the a in fat, i in fit, u in but, o in not, have the character of being uttered with rapidity, and they pass quickly in the enunciation, the voice not resting on them. This rapidity of utterance becomes more evident when we contrast with them the prolonged sounds of the a in fate, ee in feet, oo in book, or o in note; wherein the utterance is retarded, and wherein the voice rests, delays, or is prolonged. The f and t of fate are separated by a longer interval than the f and t of fat; and the same is the case with fit, feet, &c.

Let the n and the t of not be each as 1, the o also being as 1; then each letter, consonant or vowel, shall constitute 1/3 of the whole word.

Let, however, the n and the t of note be each as 1, the o being as 2. Then, instead of each consonant constituting 1/3 of the whole word, it shall constitute but 1/4.

Upon the comparative extent to which the voice is prolonged, the division of vowels and syllables into long and short has been established: the o in note being long, the o in not being short. And the longness or shortness of a vowel or syllable is said to be its quantity.

s. 137. Attention is directed to the word vowel. The longness or shortness of a vowel is one thing. The longness or shortness of a syllable another. This difference is important in prosody; especially in comparing the English with the classical metres.

The vowel in the syllable see is long; and long it remains, whether it stand as it is, or be followed by a consonant, as in see-n, or by a vowel, as in see-ing.

The vowel in the word sit is short. If followed by a vowel it becomes unpronounceable, except as the ea in seat or the i in sight. By a consonant, however, it may be followed. Such is the case in the word quoted—sit. Followed by a second consonant, it still retains its shortness, e.g., sits. Whatever the comparative length of the syllables, see and seen, sit and sits, may be, the length of their respective vowels is the same.

Now, if we determine the character of the syllable by the character of the vowel, all syllables are short wherein there is a short vowel, and all are long wherein there is a long one. Hence, measured by the quantity of the vowel, the word sits is short, and the syllable see- in seeing is long.

s. 138. But it is well known that this view is not the view commonly taken of the syllables see (in seeing) and sits. It is well known, that, in the eyes of a classical scholar, the see (in seeing) is short, and that in the word sits the i is long.

The classic differs from the Englishman thus,—He measures his quantity, not by the length of the vowel, but by the length of the syllable taken altogether. The perception of this distinction enables us to comprehend the following statements.

a. That vowels long by nature may appear to become short by position, and vice 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.

s. 139. In the word tyrant there is an emphasis, or stress, upon the first syllable. In the word presume there is an emphasis, or stress, on the second syllable. This emphasis, or stress, is called accent. The circumstance of a syllable bearing an accent is sometimes expressed by a mark ('); in which case the word is said to be accentuated, i.e., to have the accent signified in writing.

Words accented on the last syllable—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.

s. 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.

s. 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.

s. 142. Orthoepy, a word derived from the Greek orthon (upright), and epos (a word), signifies the right utterance of words. Orthoepy determines words, and deals with a language as it is spoken; orthography determines the correct spelling of words, and deals with a language as it is written. This latter term is derived from the Greek words orthos (upright), and graphé, or grafae (writing). Orthography is less essential to language than orthoepy; since all languages are spoken, whilst but a few languages are written. Orthography presupposes orthoepy. Orthography addresses itself to the eye, orthoepy to the ear. Orthoepy deals with the articulate sounds that constitute syllables and words; orthography treats of the signs by which such articulate sounds are expressed in writing. A letter is the sign of an articulate (and, in the case of h, of an inarticulate) sound.

s. 143. A full and perfect system of orthography consists in two things:—1. The possession of a sufficient and consistent alphabet. 2. The right application of such an alphabet. This position may be illustrated more fully.

s. 144. First, in respect to a sufficient and consistent alphabet—Let there be in a certain language, simple single articulate sounds, to the number of forty, whilst the simple single signs, or letters, expressive of them, amount to no more than thirty. In this case the alphabet is insufficient. It is not full enough: since ten of the simple single articulate sounds have no corresponding signs whereby they may be expressed. In our own language, the sounds (amongst others) of th in thin, and of th in thine, are simple and single, whilst there is no sign equally simple and single to spell them with.

s. 145. An alphabet, however, may be sufficient, and yet imperfect. It may err on the score of inconsistency. Let there be in a given language two simple single sounds, (for instance) the p in pate, and the f in fate. Let these sounds stand in a given relation to each other. Let a given sign, for instance, [Hebrew: P] (as is actually the case in Hebrew), stand for the p in pate; and let a second sign be required for the f in fate. Concerning the nature of this latter sign, two views may be taken. One framer of the alphabet, perceiving that the two sounds are mere modifications of each other, may argue that no new sign (or letter) is at all necessary, but that the sound of f in fate may be expressed by a mere modification of the sign (or letter) [Hebrew: P], and may be written thus [Hebrew: P.], or thus [Hebrew: P'] or [Hebrew: P'], &c.; upon the principle that like sounds should be expressed by like signs. The other framer of the alphabet, contemplating the difference between the two sounds, rather than the likeness, may propose, not a mere modification of the sign [Hebrew: P], but a letter altogether new, such as f, or [Greek: ph], &c., upon the principle that sounds of a given degree of dissimilitude should be expressed by signs of a different degree of dissimilitude.

Hitherto the expression of the sounds in point is a matter of convenience only. No question has been raised as to its consistency or inconsistency. This begins under conditions like the following:—Let there be in the language in point the sounds of the t in tin, and of the th in thin; which (it may be remembered) are precisely in the same relation to each other as the p in pate and the f in fate. Let each of these sounds have a sign or letter expressive of it. Upon the nature of these signs, or letters, will depend the nature of the sign or letter required for the f in fate. If the letter expressing the th in thin be a mere modification of the letter expressing the t in tin, then must the letter expressive of the f in fate be a mere modification of the letter expressing the p in pate, and vice 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.

s. 146. A third element in the faultiness of an alphabet is the fault of erroneous representation. The best illustration of this we get from the Hebrew alphabet, where the sounds of [Hebrew: T] and [Hebrew: T'], mere varieties of each other, are represented by distinct and dissimilar signs, whilst [Hebrew: T] and [Hebrew: T], sounds specifically distinct, are expressed by a mere modification of the same sign, or letter.

s. 147. The right application of an alphabet.—An alphabet may be both sufficient and consistent, accurate in its representation of the alliances between articulate sounds, and in no wise redundant; and yet, withal, it may be so wrongly applied as to be defective. Of defect in the use or application of the letters of an alphabet, the three main causes are the following:—

a. Unsteadiness in the power of letters.—Of this there are two kinds. In the first, there is one sound with two (or more) ways of expressing it. Such is the sound of the letter f in English. In words of Anglo-Saxon origin it is spelt with a single simple sign, as in fill; whilst in Greek words it is denoted by a combination, as in Philip. The reverse of this takes place with the letter g; here a single sign has a double power; in gibbet it is sounded as j, and in gibberish as g in got.

b. The aim at secondary objects.—The natural aim of orthography, of spelling, or of writing, is to express the sounds of a language. Syllables and words it takes as they meet the ear, it translates them by appropriate signs, and so paints them, as it were, to the eye. That this is the natural and primary object is self-evident; but beyond this natural and primary object there is, with the orthographical systems of most languages, a secondary one, viz., the attempt to combine with the representation of the sound of a given word, the representation of its history and origin.

The sound of the c, in city, is the sound that we naturally spell with the letter s, and if the expression of this sound was the only object of our orthographists, the word would be spelt accordingly (sity). The following facts, however, traverse this simple view of the matter. The word is a derived word; it is transplanted into our own language from the Latin, where it is spelt with a c (civitas); and to change this c into s conceals the origin and history of the word. For this reason the c is retained, although, as far as the mere expression of sounds (the primary object in orthography) is concerned, the letter is a superfluity. In cases like the one adduced the orthography is bent to a secondary end, and is traversed by the etymology.

c. Obsoleteness.—It is very evident that modes of spelling which at one time may have been correct, may, by a change of pronunciation, become incorrect; so that orthography becomes obsolete whenever there takes place a change of speech without a correspondent change of spelling.

s. 148. From the foregoing sections we arrive at the theory of a full and perfect alphabet and orthography, of which a few (amongst many others) of the chief conditions are as follow:—

1. That for every simple single sound, incapable of being represented by a combination of letters, there be a simple single sign.

2. That sounds within a determined degree of likeness be represented by signs within a determined degree of likeness; whilst sounds beyond a certain degree of likeness be represented by distinct and different signs, and that uniformly.

3. That no sound have more than one sign to express it.

4. That no sign express more than one sound.

5. That the primary aim of orthography be to express the sounds of words, and not their histories.

6. That changes of speech be followed by corresponding changes of spelling.

With these principles in our mind we may measure the imperfections of our own and of other alphabets.

s. 149. Previous to considering the sufficiency or insufficiency of the English alphabet, it is necessary to enumerate the elementary articulate sounds of the language. The vowels belonging to the English language are the following twelve:—

1. That of a in father. 7. That of e — bed. 2. — a — fat. 8. — i — pit. 3. — a — fate. 9. — ee — feet. 4. — aw — bawl. 10. — u — bull. 5. — o — not. 11. — oo — fool. 6. — o — note. 12. — u — duck.

The diphthongal sounds are four.

1. That of ou in house. 2. — ew — new. 3. — oi — oil. 4. — i — bite.

This last sound being most incorrectly expressed by the single letter i.

The consonantal sounds are, 1. the two semivowels; 2. the four liquids; 3. fourteen out of the sixteen mutes; 4. ch in chest, and j in jest, compound sibilants; 5. ng, as in king; 6. the aspirate h. In all, twenty-four.

1. w as in wet. 13. th as in thin. 2. y — yet. 14. th — thine. 3. m — man. 15. g — gun. 4. n — not. 16. k — kind. 5. l — let. 17. s — sin. 6. r — run. 18. z — zeal. 7. p — pate. 19. sh — shine. 8. b — ban. 20. z — azure, glazier. 9. f — fan. 21. ch — chest. 10. v — van. 22. j — jest. 11. t — tin. 23. ng — king. 12. d — din. 24. h — hot.

s. 150. Some writers would add to these the additional sound of the 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."