s. 151. The vowels being twelve, the diphthongs four, and the consonantal sounds twenty-four, we have altogether as many as forty sounds, some being so closely allied to each other as to be mere modifications, and others being combinations rather than simple sounds; all, however, agreeing in requiring to be expressed by letters or by combinations of letters, and to be distinguished from each other. This enables us to appreciate—

s. 152. The insufficiency of the English alphabet.—

a. In respect to the vowels.—Notwithstanding the fact that the sounds of the a in father, fate, and fat, and of the o and the aw in note, not, and bawl, are modifications of a and o respectively, we have still six vowel sounds specifically distinct, for which (y being a consonant rather than a vowel) we have but five signs. The u in duck, specifically distinct from the u in bull, has no specifically distinct sign to represent it.

b. In respect to the consonants.—The th in thin, the th in thine, the sh in shine, the z in azure, and the ng in king, five sounds specifically distinct, and five sounds perfectly simple require corresponding signs, which they have not.

s. 153. Its inconsistency.—The f in fan, and the v in van, sounds in a certain degree of relationship to p and b, are expressed by sounds as unlike as f is unlike p, and as v is unlike b. The sound of the th in thin, the th in thine, the sh in shine, similarly related to t, d, and s, are expressed by signs as like t, d, and s, respectively, as th and sh.

The compound sibilant sound of j in jest is spelt with the single sign j, whilst the compound sibilant sound in chest is spelt with the combination ch.

s. 154. Erroneousness.—The sound of the ee in feet is considered the long (independent) sound of the e in bed; whereas it is the long (independent) sound of the i in pit.

The i in bite is considered as the long (independent) sound of the i in pit; whereas it is a diphthongal sound.

The u in duck is looked upon as a modification of the u in bull; whereas it is a specifically distinct sound.

The ou in house and the oi in oil are looked upon as the compounds of o and i and of o and u respectively; whereas the latter element of them is not i and u, but y and w.

The th in thin and the th in thine are dealt with as one and the same sound; whereas they are sounds specifically distinct.

The ch in chest is dealt with as a modification of c (either with the power of k or of s); whereas its elements are t and sh.

s. 155. Redundancy.—As far as the representation of sounds is concerned the letter c is superfluous. In words like citizen it may be replaced by s; in words like cat by k. In ch, as in chest, it has no proper place. In ch, as in mechanical, it may be replaced by k.

Q is superfluous, cw or kw being its equivalent.

X also is superfluous, ks, gz, or z, being equivalent to it.

The diphthongal forms ae and oe, as in Aeneas and Croesus, except in the way of etymology, are superfluous and redundant.

s. 156. Unsteadiness.—Here we have (amongst many other examples), 1. The consonant c with the double power of s and k; 2. g with its sound in gun and also with its sound in gin; 3. x with its sounds in Alexander, apoplexy, Xenophon.

In the foregoing examples a single sign has a double power; in the words Philip and filip, &c.; a single sound has a double sign.

In respect to the degree wherein the English orthography is made subservient to etymology, it is sufficient to repeat the statement that as many as three letters c, ae, and oe are retained in the alphabet for etymological purposes only.

s. 157. The defects noticed in the preceding sections are absolute defects, and would exist, as they do at present, were there no language in the world except the English. This is not the case with those that are now about to be noticed; for them, indeed, the word defect is somewhat too strong a term. They may more properly be termed inconveniences.

Compared with the languages of the rest of the world the use of many letters in the English alphabet is singular. The letter i (when long or independent) is, with the exception of England, generally sounded as ee. With Englishmen it has a diphthongal power. The inconvenience of this is the necessity that it imposes upon us, in studying foreign languages, of unlearning the sound which we give it in our own, and of learning the sound which it bears in the language studied. So it is (amongst many others) with the letter j. In English this has the sound of dzh, in French of zh, and in German of y. From singularity in the use of letters arises inconvenience in the study of foreign tongues.

In using j as dzh there is a second objection. It is not only inconvenient, but it is theoretically incorrect. The letter j was originally a modification of the vowel i. The Germans, who used it as the semivowel y, have perverted it from its original power less than the English have done, who sound it dzh.

With these views we may appreciate in the English alphabet and orthography—

Its convenience or inconvenience in respect to learning foreign tongues.—The sound given to the a in fate is singular. Other nations sound it as a in father.

The sound given to the e, long (or independent), is singular. Other nations sound it either as a in fate, or as 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.

s. 158. The historical propriety or impropriety of certain letters.—The use of i with a diphthongal power is not only singular and inconvenient, but also historically incorrect. The Greek iota, from whence it originates, has the sound of i and ee, as in pit and feet.

The y, sounded as in yet, is historically incorrect. It grew out of the Greek [upsilon], a vowel, and no semivowel. The Danes still use it as such, that is, with the power of the German ue.

The use of j for dzh is historically incorrect.

The use of c for k in words derived from the Greek as mechanical, ascetic, &c., is historically incorrect. The form c is the representative of [gamma] and [sigma] and not of the Greek kappa.

s. 159. On certain conventional modes of spelling.—In the Greek language the sounds of o in not and of o in note (although allied) are expressed by the unlike signs (or letters) [omicron] and [omega], respectively. In most other languages the difference between the sounds is considered too slight to require for its expression signs so distinct and dissimilar. In some languages the difference is neglected altogether. In many, however, it is expressed, and that by some modification of the original letter.

Let the sign (-) denote that the vowel over which it stands is long, or independent, whilst the sign (U) indicates shortness, or dependence. In such a case, instead of writing not and n[omega]t, like the Greeks, we may write nŏt and nōt, 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 = nōt = n[omega]t = nōte; provided only that the sign (') expresses no other condition or affection of a sound. This use of the mark ('), as a sign that the vowel over which it is placed is long (independent), is common in many languages. But is this use of (') natural? For a reason that the reader has anticipated, it is not natural, but conventional. Neither is it convenient. It is used elsewhere not as the sign of quantity, but as the sign of accent; consequently, being placed over a letter, and being interpreted according to its natural meaning, it gives the idea, not that the syllable is long, but that it is emphatic or accented. Its use as a sign of quantity then, would be an orthographical expedient, or an inconvenient conventional mode of spelling.

The English language abounds in orthographical expedients; the modes of expressing the quantity of the vowels being particularly numerous. To begin with these:—

The reduplication of a vowel where there is but one syllable (as in feet, cool), is an orthographical expedient. It merely means that the syllable is long (or independent).

The juxtaposition of two different vowels, where there is but one syllable (as in plain, moan), is an orthographical expedient. It generally means the same as the reduplication of a vowel, i.e., that the syllable is long (independent).

The addition of the e mute, as in plane, whale (whatever may have been its origin), is, at present, but an orthographical expedient. It denotes the lengthening of the syllable.

The reduplication of the consonant after a vowel, as in spotted, torrent, is in most cases but an orthographical expedient. It merely denotes that the preceding vowel is short (dependent).

The use of ph for f in Philip, is an orthographical expedient, founded upon etymological reasons.

The use of th for the simple sound of the first consonant in thin and thine, is an orthographical expedient. The combination must be dealt with as a single letter.

Caution.—The letters x and q are not orthographical expedients. They are orthographical compendiums, x = ks, and q = kw.

* * * * *

CHAPTER IX.

HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE ENGLISH ALPHABET.

s. 160. The preceding chapter has exhibited the theory of a full and perfect alphabet; it has shown how far the English alphabet falls short of such a standard; and, above all, it has exhibited some of the conventional modes of spelling which the insufficiency of alphabets, combined with other causes, has engendered. The present chapter gives a history of our alphabet, whereby many of its defects are accounted for. These defects, it may be said, once for all, the English alphabet shares with those of the rest of the world; although, with the doubtful exception of the French, it possesses them in a higher degree than any.

With few, if any exceptions, all the modes of writing in the world originate, directly or indirectly, from the Phoenician.

At a certain period the alphabet of Palestine, Phoenicia, and the neighboring languages of the Semitic tribes, consisted of twenty-two separate and distinct letters.

Now the chances are, that, let a language possess as few elementary articulate sounds as possible, an alphabet of only twenty-two letters will be insufficient.

Hence it may safely be asserted, that the original Semitic alphabet was insufficient for even the Semitic languages.

s. 161. In this state it was imported into Greece. Now, as it rarely happens that any two languages have precisely the same elementary articulate sounds, so it rarely happens that an alphabet can be transplanted from one tongue to another, and be found to suit. When such is the case, alterations are required. The extent to which these alterations are made at all, or (if made) made on a right principle varies with different languages. Some adapt an introduced alphabet well: others badly.

Of the twenty-two Phoenician letters the Greeks took but twenty-one. The eighteenth letter, tsadi [Hebrew: TS] was never imported into Europe.

Compared with the Semitic, the Old Greek alphabet ran thus:—

Hebrew. Greek.

1. [Hebrew: '] [Alpha]. 2. [Hebrew: B] [Beta]. 3. [Hebrew: G] [Gamma]. 4. [Hebrew: D] [Delta]. 5. [Hebrew: H] [Epsilon]. 6. [Hebrew: W] Digamma. 7. [Hebrew: Z] [Zeta]. 8. [Hebrew: CH] [Eta]. 9. [Hebrew: T'] [Theta]. 10. [Hebrew: Y] [Iota]. 11. [Hebrew: K] [Kappa]. 12. [Hebrew: L] [Lambda]. 13. [Hebrew: M] [Mu]. 14. [Hebrew: N] [Nu]. 15. [Hebrew: S] [Sigma]? 16. [Hebrew: '] [Omicron]. 17. [Hebrew: P] [Pi]. 18. [Hebrew: TS] — A letter called 19. [Hebrew: Q] koppa, afterwards ejected. 20. [Hebrew: R] [Rho]. 21. [Hebrew: SH] M afterwards [Sigma]? 22. [Hebrew: T] [Tau].

The names of the letters were as follows:

Hebrew. Greek.

1. Aleph Alpha. 2. Beth Baeta. 3. Gimel Gamma. 4. Daleth Delta. 5. He E, psilon. 6. Vaw Digamma. 7. Zayn Zaeta. 8. Heth Haeta. 9. Teth Thaeta. 10. Yod 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.

s. 162. But it was not from the Greek that our own alphabet was immediately derived; although ultimately it is referable to the same source as the Greek, viz., the Phoenician.

It was the Roman alphabet which served as the basis to the English.

And it is in the changes which the Phoenician alphabet underwent in being accommodated to the Latin language that we must investigate the chief peculiarities of the present alphabet and orthography of Great Britain and America.

Now respecting the Roman alphabet, we must remember that it was not taken directly from the Phoenician; in this important point differing from the Greek.

Nor yet was it taken, in the first instance, from the Greek.

It had a double origin.

The operation of the principles indicated in s. 161 was a work of the time; and hence the older and more unmodified Greek alphabet approached in character its Phoenician prototype much more than the later, or modified. As may be seen, by comparing the previous alphabets with the common alphabets of the Greek Grammar, the letters 6 and 19 occur in the earlier, whilst they are missing in the later, modes of writing. On the other hand, the old alphabet has no such signs as [phi], [chi], [upsilon], [omega], [psi], and [xi].

Such being the case, it is easy to imagine what would be the respective conditions of two Italian languages which borrowed those alphabets, the one from the earlier, the other from the later Greek. The former would contain the equivalents to vaw (6), and kof (19); but be destitute of [phi], [chi], &c.; whereas the latter would have [phi], [chi], &c., but be without either vaw or kof.

Much the same would be the case with any single Italian language which took as its basis the earlier, but adopted, during the course of time, modifications from the later Greek. It would exhibit within itself characters common to the two stages.

This, or something very like it, was the case with Roman. For the first two or three centuries the alphabet was Etruscan; Etruscan derived directly from the Greek, and from the old Greek.

Afterwards, however, the later Greek alphabet had its influence, and the additional letters which it contained were more or less incorporated; and that without effecting the ejection of any earlier ones.

s. 163. With these preliminaries we may investigate the details of the Roman alphabet, when we shall find that many of them stand in remarkable contrast with those of Greece and Phoenicia. At the same time where they differ with them, they agree with the English.

Order. Roman. English. Greek. Hebrew.

1. A A Alpha Aleph. 2. B B Baeta Beth. 3. C C Gamma Gimel. 4. D D Delta Daleth. 5. E E Epsilon He. 6. F F Digamma Vaw. 7. G G — — 8. H H Haeta Heth. 9. I I 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 Zaeta Zain.

s. 164. The differences of this table are referable to one of the following four heads:—a. Ejection. b. Addition. c. Change of power. d. Change of order.

a. Ejection.—In the first instance, the Italians ejected as unnecessary, letters 7,[44] 9, and 11: zayn (zaeta), teth (thaeta), and kaf (kappa). Either the sounds which they expressed were wanting in their language; or else they were expressed by some other letter. The former was probably the case with 7 and 9, zaeta and thaeta, the latter with 11, kappa.

b. Addition.—Out of the Greek 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 (haeta).

Why? Because it was there where there was a vacancy, and where it replaced the Greek zaeta, or the Hebrew zayn, a letter which, at that time, was not wanted in Latin.

d. Change of order.—As far as the letters c and g are concerned, this has been explained; and it has been shown that change of order and change of power are sometimes very closely connected. All that now need be added is, that those letters which were last introduced from the Greek into the Roman alphabet, were placed at the end.

This is why u, v, w, and y come after t—the last letter of the original Phoenician, and also of the older Greek.

This, too, is the reason for z coming last of all. It was restored for the purpose of spelling Greek words. But as its original place had been filled up by g, it was tacked on as an appendage, rather than incorporated as an element.

X in power, coincided with the Greek xi; in place, with the Greek khi. Its position seems to have determined its form, which is certainly that of X rather than of [Xi]. The full investigation of this is too lengthy for the present work.

s. 165. It should be observed, that, in the Latin, the letters have no longer any names (like beth, baeta), except such as are derived from their powers (be, ce).

s. 166. The principles which determined the form of the Roman alphabet were, upon the whole, correct; and, hence, the Roman alphabet, although not originally meant to express an Italian tongue at all, expressed the language to which it was applied tolerably.

On the other hand, there were both omissions and alterations which have had a detrimental effect upon the orthography of those other numerous tongues to which Latin has supplied the alphabet. Thus—

a. It is a matter of regret, that the differences which the Greeks drew between the so-called long and short e and o, was neglected by the Latins; in other words, that [omega] was omitted entirely, and [eta] changed in power. Had this been the case, all the orthographical expedients by which we have to express the difference between the o in not, and the o in note, would have been prevented—not, note, moat—bed, bead, heel, glede, &c.

b. It is a matter of regret, that such an unnecessary compendium as q = cu, or cw, should have been retained from the old Greek alphabet; and, still more so, that the equally superfluous x = cs, or ks, should have been re-admitted.

c. It is a matter of regret, that the Greek [theta] was not treated like the Greek [zeta]. Neither were wanted at first; both afterwards. The manner, however, of their subsequent introduction was different. Zaeta came in as a simple single letter, significant of a simple single sound. Thaeta, on the contrary, although expressive of an equally simple sound, became th. This was a combination rather than a letter; and the error which it engendered was great.

It suggested the idea, that a simple sound was a compound one—which was wrong.

It further suggested the idea, that the sound of [theta] differed from that of [tau], by the addition of h—which was wrong also.

s. 167. The Greek language had a system of sounds different from the Phoenician; and the alphabet required modifying accordingly.

The Roman language had a system of sounds different from the Greek and the alphabet required modifying accordingly.

This leads us to certain questions concerning the Anglo-Saxon. Had it a system of sounds different from the Roman? If so, what modifications did the alphabet require? Were such modifications effected? If so, how? Sufficiently or insufficiently? The answers are unsatisfactory.

s. 168. The Anglo-Saxon had, even in its earliest stage, the following sounds, for which the Latin alphabet had no equivalent signs or letters—

1. The sound of the th in thin.

2. The sound of the th in thine.

It had certainly these: probably others.

s. 169. Expressive of these, two new signs were introduced, viz., th = th in thin, and dh = th in thine.

W, also evolved out of u, was either an original improvement of the Anglo-Saxon orthographists, or a mode of expression borrowed from one of the allied languages of the Continent. Probably the latter was the case; since we find the following passage in the Latin dedication of Otfrid's "Krist:"—"Hujus enim linguae barbaries, ut est inculca et indisciplinabilis, atque insueta capi regulari freno grammaticae artis, sic etiam in multis dictis scriptu est difficilis propter literarum aut congeriem, aut incognitam sonoritatem. Nam interdum tria u u u ut puto quaerit in sono; priores duo consonantes, ut mihi videtur, tertium vocali sono manente."

This was, as far as it went, correct, so that the Anglo-Saxon alphabet, although not originally meant to express a Gothic tongue at all, answered the purpose to which it was applied tolerably.

s. 170. Change, however, went on; and the orthography which suited the earlier Anglo-Saxon would not suit the later; at any rate, it would not suit the language which had become or was becoming, English; wherein the sounds for which the Latin alphabet had no equivalent signs increase. Thus there is at present—

1. The sound of the sh in shine.

2. The sound of the z in azure.

How are these to be expressed? The rule has hitherto been to denote simple single sounds, by simple single signs, and where such signs have no existence already, to originate new ones.

To combine existing letters, rather than to coin a new one, has only been done rarely. The Latin substitution of the combination th for the simple single [theta], was exceptionable. It was a precedent, however, which now begins to be followed generally.

s. 171. It is this precedent which accounts for the absence of any letter in English, expressive of either of the sounds in question.

s. 172. Furthermore, our alphabet has not only not increased in proportion to our sound-system, but it has decreased. The Anglo-Saxon th = the th in thin, and dh = the th in thine, have become obsolete; and a difference in pronunciation, which our ancestors expressed, we overlook.

The same precedent is at the bottom of this; a fact which leads us to—

s. 173. The Anglo-Norman alphabet.—The Anglo-Saxon language was Gothic; the alphabet, Roman.

The Anglo-Norman language was Roman; the alphabet, Roman also.

The Anglo-Saxon took his speech from one source; his writing from another.

The Anglo-Norman took both from the same.

In adapting a Latin alphabet to a Gothic language, the Anglo-Saxon allowed himself more latitude than the Anglo-Norman. We have seen that the new signs th and dh were Anglo-Saxon.

Now the sounds which these letters represent did not occur in the Norman-French, consequently the Norman-French alphabet neither had nor needed to have signs to express them; until after the battle of Hastings, when it became the Anglo-Norman of England.

Then, the case became altered. The English language influenced the Norman orthography, and the Norman orthography the English language; and the result was, that the simple single correct and distinctive signs of the Anglo-Saxon alphabet, became replaced by the incorrect and indistinct combination th.

This was a loss, both in the way of theoretical correctness and perspicuity.

Such is the general view of the additions, ejections, changes of power, and changes of order in the English alphabet. The extent, however, to which an alphabet is faulty, is no measure of the extent to which an orthography is faulty; since an insufficient alphabet may, by consistency in its application, be more useful than a full and perfect alphabet unsteadily applied.

s. 174. One of our orthographical expedients, viz., the reduplication of the consonant following, to express the shortness (dependence) of the preceding vowel, is as old as the classical languages: terra, [Greek: thalassa]. Nevertheless, the following extract from the "Ormulum" (written in the thirteenth century) is the fullest recognition of the practice that I have met with.

And whase wilenn shall this boc, Efft otherr sithe writenn, Himm bidde icc thatt hett write rihht, Swa sum thiss boc himm taechethth; All thwerrt utt affterr thatt itt iss Oppo thiss firrste bisne, Withth all swilc rime als her iss sett, Withth alse fele wordess: And tatt he loke well thatt he An boc-staff write twiggess,[47] Eggwhaer thaer itt uppo thiss boc Iss writenn o thatt wise: Loke he well thatt hett write swa, Forr he ne magg noht elless, On Englissh writenn rihht te word, thatt wite he well to sothe.

s. 175. The order of the alphabet.—In the history of our alphabet, we have had the history of certain changes in the arrangement, as well as of the changes in the number and power of its letters. The following question now presents itself: viz., Is there in the order of the letters any natural arrangement, or is the original as well as the present succession of letters arbitrary and accidental? The following facts suggest an answer in the affirmative.

The order of the Hebrew alphabet is as follows:—

Name. Sound.

1. Aleph Either a vowel or a breathing. 2. Beth B. 3. Gimel G, as in gun. 4. Daleth D. 5. He Either a vowel or an aspirate. 6. Vaw V. 7. Zayn Z. 8. Kheth a variety of K. 9. Teth a variety of T. 10. Yod I. 11. Caph K. 12. Lamed L. 13. Mem M. 14. Nun N. 15. Samech a variety of S. 16. Ayn Either a vowel or ——? 17. Pe P. 18. Tsadi TS. 19. Kof a variety of K. 20. Resh R. 21. Sin S. 22. Tau T.

Let beth, vaw, and pe (b, v, p) constitute a series called series P. Let gimel, kheth, and kof (g, kh, k') constitute a series called series K. Let daleth, teth, and tau, (d, t', t) constitute a series called series T. Let aleph, he, and ayn constitute a series called the vowel series. Let the first four letters be taken in their order.

1. Aleph of the vowel series. 2. Beth of series P. 3. Gimel of series K. 4. Daleth of series T.

Herein the consonant of series B comes next to the letter of the vowel series; that of series K follows; and in the last place, comes the letter of series T. After this the order changes; daleth being followed by he of the vowel series.

5. He of the vowel series. 6. Vaw of series P. 7. Zayn —— 8. Kheth of series K. 9. Teth of series T.

In this second sequence the relative positions of v, kh, and t', are the same in respect to each other, and the same in respect to the vowel series. The sequence itself is broken by the letter zayn but it is remarkable that the principle of the sequence is the same. Series P follows the vowel and series T is farthest from it. After this the system becomes but fragmentary. Still, even now, pe, of series P, follows ayn; tau, of series T, is farthest from it, and kof, of series K, is intermediate.

If this be the case, and, if the letters, so to say, circulate, the alterations made in their order during the transfer of their alphabet from Greece to Rome, have had the unsatisfactory effect of concealing an interesting arrangement, and of converting a real, though somewhat complex regularity, into apparent hazard and disorder.

* * * * *

QUESTIONS.

1. Explain the terms sharp, explosive, true aspirate, apparent aspirate, broad, dependent.

2. Exhibit the difference between the quantity of syllables and the quantity of vowels.

3. Accentuate the following words,—attribute (adjective), survey (verb), August (the month).

4. Under what conditions is the sound of consonants doubled?

5. Exhibit, in a tabular form, the relations of the a) mutes, b) the vowels, underlining those which do not occur in English.

6. What is the power of ph in Philip? what in haphazard? Illustrate the difference fully.

7. Investigate the changes by which the words picture, nature, derived from the Latin pictura and natura, are sounded pictshur and natshur.

8. How do you sound the combination apd? Why?

9. In what points is the English alphabet insufficient, redundant, and inconsistent?

10. Why is z (zaeta), which is the sixth letter in the Greek, the last in the English alphabet?

* * * * *

PART IV.

ETYMOLOGY.

* * * * *

CHAPTER I.

ON THE PROVINCE OF ETYMOLOGY.

s. 176. The word etymology, derived from the Greek, in the current language of scholars and grammarians, has a double meaning. At times it is used in a wide, and at times in a restricted sense.

If in the English language we take such a word as fathers, we are enabled to divide it into two parts; in other words, to reduce it into two elements. By comparing it with the word father, we see that the s is neither part nor parcel of the original word. Hence the word is capable of being analysed; father being the original primitive word, and s the secondary superadded termination. From the word father, the word fathers is derived, or (changing the expression) deduced, or descended. What has been said of the word fathers may also be said of fatherly, fatherlike, fatherless, &c. Now, from the word father, all these words (fathers, fatherly, fatherlike, and fatherless) differ in form and in meaning. To become such a word as fathers, &c., the word father is changed. Of changes of this sort, it is the province of etymology to take cognizance.

s. 177. Compared with the form fathers, the word father is the older form of the two. The word father is a word current in this the nineteenth century. The same word is found much earlier, under different forms, and in different languages. Thus, in the Latin language, the form was pater; in Greek, [Greek: pater]. Now, with father and fathers, the change takes place within the same language, whilst the change that takes place between pater and father takes place within different languages. Of changes of this latter kind it is, also, the province of etymology to take cognizance.

s. 178. In its widest signification, etymology takes cognizance of the changes of the form of words. However, as the etymology that compares the forms fathers and father is different from the etymology that compares father and pater, we have, of etymology, two sorts: one dealing with the changes of form that words undergo in one and the same language (father, fathers), the other dealing with the changes that words undergo in passing from one language to another (pater, father).

The first of these sorts may be called etymology in the limited sense of the word, or the etymology of the grammarian. In this case it is opposed to orthoepy, orthography, syntax, and the other parts of grammar. This is the etymology of the ensuing pages.

The second may be called etymology in the wide sense of the word, historical etymology, or comparative etymology.

s. 179. It must be again repeated that the two sorts of etymology agree in one point, viz., in taking cognizance of the changes of forms that words undergo. Whether the change arise from grammatical reasons, as father, fathers, or from a change of language taking place in the lapse of time, as pater, father, is a matter of indifference.

In the Latin pater, and in the English father, we have one of two things, either two words descended or derived from each other, or two words descended or derived from a common original source.

In fathers we have a formation deduced from the radical word father.

With these preliminaries we may understand Dr. Johnson's explanation of the word etymology.

"ETYMOLOGY, n. s. (etymologia, Lat.) [Greek: etumos] (etymos) true, and [Greek: logos] (logos) a word.

"1. The descent or derivation of a word from its original; the deduction of formations from the radical word; the analysis of compounds into primitives.

"2. The part of grammar which delivers the inflections of nouns and verbs."

* * * * *

CHAPTER II

ON GENDER.

s. 180. How far is there such a thing as gender in the English language? This depends upon the meaning that we attach to the word.

In the Latin language we have the words taurus = bull, and vacca = cow. Here the natural distinction of sex is expressed by wholly different words. With this we have corresponding modes of expression in English: e.g.,

Male. Female. Male. Female. Bachelor Spinster. Horse Mare. Boar Sow. Ram Ewe. Boy Girl. Son Daughter. Brother Sister. Uncle Aunt. Buck Doe. Father Mother, &c.

The mode, however, of expressing different sexes by wholly different words is not a matter of gender. The words boy and girl bear no etymological relation to each other; neither being derived from the other, nor in any way connected with it.

s. 181. Neither are words like cock-sparrow, man-servant, he-goat, &c., as compared with hen-sparrow, maid-servant, she-goat, &c., specimens of gender. Here a difference of sex is indicated by the addition of a fresh term, from which is formed a compound word.

s. 182. In the Latin words genitrix = a mother, and genitor = a father, we have a nearer approach to gender. Here the difference of sex is expressed by a difference of termination; the words genitor and genitrix being in a true etymological relation, i.e., either derived from each other, or from some common source. With this we have, in English corresponding modes of expression: e.g.

Male. Female. Male. Female. Actor Actress. Lion Lioness. Arbiter Arbitress. Peer Peeress. Baron Baroness. Poet Poetess. Benefactor Benefactress. Sorcerer Sorceress. Count Countess. Songster Songstress. Duke Duchess. Tiger Tigress.

s. 183. This, however, in strict grammatical language, is an approach to gender rather than gender itself; the difference from true grammatical gender being as follows:—

Let the Latin words genitor and genitrix be declined:—

Sing. Nom. Genitor Genitrix. Gen. Genitor-is Genitric-is. Dat. Genitor-i Genitric-i. Acc. Genitor-em Genitric-em. Voc. Genitor Genitrix. Plur. Nom. Genitor-es Genitric-es. Gen. Genitor-um Genitric-um. Dat. Genitor-ibus Genitric-ibus. Acc. Genitor-es Genitric-es. Voc. Genitor-es Genitric-es.

The syllables in italics are the signs of the cases and numbers. Now those signs are the same in each word, the difference of meaning (or sex) not affecting them.

s. 184. Contrast, however, with the words genitor and genitrix the words domina = a mistress, and dominus = a master.

Sing. Nom. Domin-a Domin-us. Gen. Domin-ae Domin-i. Dat. Domin-ae Domin-o. Acc. Domin-am Domin-um. Voc. Domin-a Domin-e. Plur. Nom. Domin-ae Domin-i. Gen. Domin-arum Domin-orum. Dat. Domin-abus Domin-is. Acc. Domin-as Domin-os. Voc. Domin-ae Domin-i.

Here the letters in italics, or the signs of the cases and numbers, are different; the difference being brought about by the difference of gender. Now it is very evident that, if genitrix be a specimen of gender, domina is something more.

s. 185. It may be laid down as a sort of definition, that there is no gender where there is no affection of the declension: consequently, that, although we have, in English, words corresponding to genitrix and genitor, we have no true genders until we find words corresponding to dominus and domina.

s. 186. The second element in the notion of gender, although I will not venture to call it an essential one, is the following:—In the words domina and dominus, mistress and master, there is a natural distinction of sex; the one being masculine, or male, the other feminine, or female. In the words sword and lance there is no natural distinction of sex. Notwithstanding this, the word hasta, in Latin, is as much of the feminine gender as domina, whilst gladius = a sword is, like dominus, a masculine noun. From this we see that, in languages wherein there are true genders, a fictitious or conventional sex is attributed even to inanimate objects; in other words, sex is a natural distinction, gender a grammatical one.

s. 187. In s. 185 it is written, that "although we have, in English, words corresponding to genitrix and genitor, we have no true genders until we find words corresponding to dominus and domina."—The sentence was intentionally worded with caution. Words like dominus and domina, that is, words where the declension is affected by the sex, are to be found even in English.

The pronoun him, from the Anglo-Saxon and English he, as compared with the pronoun her, from the Anglo-Saxon 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.

s. 188. The formation of the neuter gender by the addition of -t, in words like wha-t, i-t, and tha-t, occurs in other languages. The -t in tha-t is the -d in istu-d, Latin, and the -t in ta-t, Sanskrit.

s. 189. In the Moeso-Gothic and Scandinavian, the adjectives form the neuters in -t, in Old High German in -z (ts), and in Modem German in -s (derived from -z)—Moeso-Gothic, blind-ata; Icel., blind-t; Old High German, plint-ez, M. G. blind-es = caec-um.

Caution.—Which, is not the neuter of who.

s. 190. Just as there are in English fragments of a gender modifying the declension, so are there, also, fragments of the second element of gender; viz., the attribution of sex to objects naturally destitute of it. The sun in his glory, the moon in her wane, are examples of this. A sailor calls his ship she. A husbandman, according to Mr. Cobbett, does the same with his plough and working implements:—"In speaking of a ship we say she and her. And you know that our country-folks in Hampshire call almost every thing he or she. It is curious to observe that country labourers give the feminine appellation to those things only which are more closely identified with themselves, and by the qualities or conditions of which their own efforts, and their character as workmen, are affected. The mower calls his scythe a she, the ploughman calls his plough a she; but a prong, or a shovel, or a harrow, which passes promiscuously from hand to hand, and which is appropriated to no particular labourer, is called a he."—"English Grammar," Letter v.

s. 191. Now, although Mr. Cobbett's statements may account for a sailor calling his ship she, they will not account for the custom of giving to the sun a masculine, and to the moon a feminine, pronoun, as is done in the expressions quoted in the last section; still less will it account for the circumstance of the Germans reversing the gender, and making the sun feminine, and the moon masculine.

s. 192. Let there be a period in the history of a language wherein the sun and moon are dealt with, not as inanimate masses of matter, but as animated divinities. Let there, in other words, be a time when dead things are personified, and when there is a mythology. Let an object like the sun be deemed a male, and an object like the moon, a female, deity. We may then understand the origin of certain genders.

The Germans say the sun in her glory; the moon in his wane. This difference between the usage of the two languages, like so many others, is explained by the influence of the classical languages upon the English.—"Mundilfori had two children; a son, 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.

s. 193. The remainder of this chapter is devoted to miscellaneous remarks upon the true and apparent genders of the English language.

1. With the false genders like baron, baroness, it is a general rule that the feminine form is derived from the masculine, and not the masculine from the feminine; as peer, peeress. The words widower, gander, and drake are exceptions. For the word wizard, from witch, see the section on augmentative forms.

2. The termination -ess, in which so large a portion of our feminine substantives terminate, is not of Saxon but of classical origin, being derived from the termination -ix, genitrix.

3. The words shepherdess, huntress, and hostess are faulty; the radical part of the word being Germanic, and the secondary part classical: indeed, in strict English Grammar, the termination -ess has no place at all. It is a classic, not a Gothic, element.

4. The termination -inn, is current in German, as the equivalent to -ess, and as a feminine affix (freund = a friend; freundinn = a female friend). In English it occurs only in a fragmentary form;—e.g., in vixen, a true feminine derivative from fox = fuechsinn, German.

Bruin = the bear, may be either a female form, as in Old High German pero = a he-bear, pirinn = a she-bear; or it may be the Norse form bjoern = a bear, male or female.

Caution.—Words like margravine and landgravine prove nothing, being scarcely naturalised.

5. The termination -str, as in webster, songster, and baxter, was originally a feminine affix. Thus, in Anglo-Saxon,

Sangere, a male singer } { Sangestre, a female singer. Bacere, a male baker } were { Bacestre, a female baker. Fidhelere, a male fiddler } opposed { Fidhelstre, a female fiddler. Vebbere, a male weaver } to { Vebbestre, a female weaver. Raedere, a male reader } { Raedestre, a female reader. Seamere, a male seamer } { Seamestre, a female seamer.

The same is the case in the present Dutch of Holland: e.g., spookster = a female fortune-teller; baxster = a baking-woman; waschster = a washerwoman. The word spinster still retains its original feminine force.

6. The words songstress and seamstress, besides being, as far as concerns the intermixture of languages, in the predicament of shepherdess, have, moreover, a double feminine termination; 1st. -str, of Germanic, 2nd. -ess, of classical, origin.

7. In the word heroine we have a Greek termination, just as -ix is a Latin, and -inn a German one. It must not, however, be considered as derived from hero, by any process of the English language, but be dealt with as a separate importation from the Greek language.

8. The form deaconness is not wholly unexceptionable; since the termination -ess is of Latin, the root deacon of Greek origin: this Greek origin being rendered all the more conspicuous by the spelling, deacon (from diaconos), as compared with the Latin decanus.

9. Goose, gander.—One peculiarity in this pair of words has already been indicated. In the older forms of the word goose, such as [Greek: chen], Greek; anser, Latin; gans, German, as well as in the derived form gander, we have the proofs that, originally, there belonged to the word the sound of the letter n. In the forms [Greek: odous], [Greek: odontos], Greek; dens, dentis, Latin; zahn, German; tooth, English, we find the analogy that accounts for the ejection of the n, and the lengthening of the vowel preceding. With respect, however, to the d in gander, it is not easy to say whether it is inserted in one word or omitted in the other. Neither can we give the precise power of the -er. The following forms occur in the different Gothic dialects. Gans, fem.; ganazzo, masc., Old High German—gôs, f.; gandra, m., Anglo-Saxon—gâs, Icelandic, f.; gaas, Danish, f.; gassi, Icelandic, m.; gasse, Danish, m.—ganser, ganserer, gansart, gaenserich, gander, masculine forms in different New German dialects.

10. Observe, the form gaenserich, has a masculine termination. The word taeuberich, in provincial New German, has the same form and the same power. It denotes a male dove; taube, in German, signifying a dove. In gaenserich and taeuberich, we find preserved the termination -rich (or rik), with a masculine power. Of this termination we have a remnant, in English, preserved in the curious word drake. To duck the word drake has no etymological relation whatsoever. It is derived from a word with which it has but one letter in common; viz., the Latin anas = a duck. Of this the root is anat-, as seen in the genitive case anatis. In Old High German we find the form anetrekho = a drake; in provincial New High German there is enterich and aentrecht, from whence come the English and Low German form, drake.

11. Peacock, peahen.—In these compounds, it is not the word pea that is rendered masculine or feminine by the addition of cock and hen, but it is the words cock and hen that are modified by prefixing pea.

* * * * *

CHAPTER III.

THE NUMBERS.

s. 194. In the Greek language the word pataer signifies a father, denoting one, whilst patere signifies two fathers, denoting a pair, and thirdly, pateres signifies fathers, speaking of any number beyond two. The three words, pataer, patere, and pateres, are said to be in different numbers, the difference of meaning being expressed by a difference of form. These numbers have names. The number that speaks of one is the singular, the number that speaks of two is the dual (from the Latin word duo = two), and the number that speaks of more than two is the plural.

All languages have numbers, but all languages have not them to the same extent. The Hebrew has a dual, but it is restricted to nouns only. It has, moreover, this peculiarity; it applies, for the most part, only to things which are naturally double, as the two eyes, the two hands, &c. The Latin has no dual number, except the natural one in the words ambo and duo.

s. 195. The question presents itself,—to what extent have we numbers in English? Like the Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, we have a singular and a plural. Like the Latin, and unlike the Greek and Hebrew, we have no dual.

s. 196. Different from the question, to what degree have we numbers? is the question,—over what extent of our language have we numbers? This distinction has already been foreshadowed or indicated. The Greeks, who said 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.

s. 197. The numbers, then, in the present English are two, the singular and the plural. Over what extent of language have we a plural? The Latins say bonus pater = a good father; boni patres = good fathers. In the Latin, the adjective bonus changes its form with the change of number of the substantive that it accompanies. In English it is only the substantive that is changed. Hence we see that in the Latin language the numbers were extended to adjectives, whereas in English they are confined to the substantives and pronouns. Compared with the Anglo-Saxon, the present English is in the same relation as it is with the Latin. In the Anglo-Saxon there were plural forms for the adjectives.

s. 198. Respecting the formation of the plural, the current rule is, that it is formed from the singular by adding s, as father, fathers. This, however, is by no means a true expression. The letter s added to the word father, making it fathers, is s to the eye only. To the ear it is z. The word sounds fatherz. If the s retained its sound the spelling would be fatherce. In stags, lads, &c., the sound is stagz, ladz. The rule, then, for the formation of the English plurals, rigorously, though somewhat lengthily expressed, is as follows.—The plural is formed from the singular, by adding to words ending in a vowel, a liquid or flat mute, the flat lene sibilant (z); and to words ending in a sharp mute, the sharp lene sibilant (s): e.g. (the sound of the word being expressed), pea, peaz; tree, treez; day, dayz; hill, hillz; hen, henz; gig, gigz; trap, traps; pit, pits; stack, stacks.

s. 199. Upon the formation of the English plural some further remarks are necessary.

a. In the case of words ending in b, v, d, the th in thine = dh, or g, a change either of the final flat consonant, or of the sharp s affixed, was not a matter of choice but of necessity; the combinations abs, avs, ads, adhs, ags, being unpronounceable.

b. Whether the first of the two mutes should be accommodated to the second (aps, afs, ats, aths, aks), or the second to the first (abz, avz, adz, adhz, agz), is determined by the habit of the particular language in question; and, with a few apparent exceptions it is the rule of the English language to accommodate the second sound to the first, and not vice 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.

s. 200. Boxes, churches, judges, lashes, kisses, blazes, princes.—Here there is the addition, not of the mere letter s, but of the syllable -es. As s cannot be immediately added to s, the intervention of a vowel becomes necessary; and that all the words whose plural is formed in -es really end either in the sounds of s, or in the allied sounds of z, sh, or zh, may be seen by analysis; since x = ks, ch = tsh, and j or ge = dzh, whilst ce, in prince, is a mere point of orthography for s.

Monarchs, heresiarchs.—Here the ch equals not tsh, but k, so that there is no need of being told that they do not follow the analogy of church, &c.

Cargoes, echoes.—From cargo and echo, with the addition of e; an orthographical expedient for the sake of denoting the length of the vowel o.

Beauty, beauties; key, keys.—Like the word cargoes, &c., these forms are points, not of etymology, but of orthography.

Pence.—The peculiarity of this word consists in having a flat liquid followed by the sharp sibilant s (spelt ce), contrary to the rule given above. In the first place, it is a contracted form from pennies; in the second place, its sense is collective rather than plural; in the third place, the use of the sharp sibilant lene distinguishes it from pens, sounded penz. That its sense is collective rather than plural, we learn from the word sixpence, which, compared with sixpences, is no plural, but a singular form.

Dice.—In respect to its form, peculiar for the reason that pence is peculiar.—We find the sound of s after a vowel, where that of z is expected. This distinguishes dice for play, from dies (diz) for coining. Dice, perhaps, like pence, is collective rather than plural.

In geese, lice, and mice, we have, apparently, the same phenomenon as in dice, viz., a sharp sibilant (s) where a flat one (z) is expected. The s, however, in these words is not the sign of the plural, but the last letter of the original word.

Alms.—This is no true plural form. The s belongs to the original word, Anglo-Saxon, aelmesse; Greek, [Greek: eleemosune]; just as the s in goose does. How far the word, although a true singular in its form, may have a collective signification, and require its verb to be plural, is a point not of etymology, but of syntax. The same is the case with the word riches, from the French richesse. In riches the last syllable being sounded as ez, increases its liability to pass for a plural.

News, means, pains.—These, the reverse of alms and riches, are true plural forms. How far, in sense, they are singular is a point not of etymology, but of syntax.

Mathematics, metaphysics, politics, ethics, optics, physics.—The following is an exhibition of my hypothesis respecting these words, to which I invite the reader's criticism. All the words in point are of Greek origin, and all are derived from a Greek adjective. Each is the name of some department of study, of some art, or of some science. As the words are Greek, so also are the sciences which they denote, either of Greek origin, or else such as flourished in Greece. Let the arts and sciences of Greece be expressed in Greek, rather by a substantive and an adjective combined, than by a simple substantive; for instance, let it be the habit of the language to say the musical art, rather than music. Let the Greek for art be a word in the feminine gender; e.g., [Greek: techne] (tekhnae), so that the musical art be [Greek: he mousike techne] (hae mousikae tekhnae). Let, in the progress of language (as was actually the case in Greece), the article and substantive be omitted, so that, for the musical art, or for music, there stand only the feminine adjective, [Greek: mousike]. Let there be, upon a given art or science, a series of books, or treatises; the Greek for book, or treatise, being a neuter substantive, [Greek: biblion] (biblion). Let the substantive meaning treatise be, in the course of language, omitted, so that whilst the science of physics is called [Greek: phusike] (fysikae), physic, from [Greek: he phusike techne], a series of treatises (or even chapters) upon the science shall be called [Greek: phusika] (fysika) or physics. Now all this was what happened in Greece. The science was denoted by a feminine adjective singular, as [Greek: phusike] (fysicae), and the treatises upon it, by the neuter adjective plural, as [Greek: phusika] (fysika). The treatises of Aristotle are generally so named. To apply this, I conceive, that in the middle ages a science of Greek origin might have its name drawn from two sources, viz., from the name of the art or science, or from the name of the books wherein it was treated. In the first case it had a singular form, as physic, logic; in the second place a plural form, as mathematics, metaphysics, optics.

In what number these words, having a collective sense, require their verbs to be, is a point of syntax.

s. 201. The plural form children (child-er-en) requires particular notice.

In the first place it is a double plural; the -en being the -en in oxen, whilst the simpler form child-er occurs in the old English, and in certain provincial dialects.

Now, what is the -er in child-er?

In Icelandic, no plural termination is commoner than that in -r; as geisl-ar = flashes, tung-ur = tongues, &c. Nevertheless, it is not the Icelandic that explains the plural form in question.

Besides the word childer, we collect from the Old High German the following forms in -r:—

Hus-ir, Houses, Chalp-ir, Calves, Lemp-ir, Lambs, Plet-ir, Blades of grass, Eig-ir, Eggs,

and others, the peculiarity of which is the fact of their all being of the neuter gender.

Now, the theory respecting this form which is propounded by Grimm is as follows:—

1. The -r represents an earlier -s.

2. Which was, originally, no sign of a plural number, but merely a neuter derivative affix, common to the singular as well as to the plural number.

3. In this form it appears in the Moeso-Gothic: ag-is = fear (whence ague = shivering), hat-is = hate, riqv-is = smoke (reek). In none of these words is the -s radical, and in none is it limited to the singular number.

To these doctrines, it should be added, that the reason why a singular derivational affix should become the sign of the plural number, lies, most probably, in the collective nature of the words in which it occurs: Husir = a collection of houses, eiger = a collection of eggs, eggery or eyry. In words like yeoman-r-y and Jew-r-y, the -r has, probably, the same origin, and is collective.

In Wicliffe we find the form lamb-r-en, which is to lamb as children is to child.

s. 202. The form in -en.—In the Anglo-Saxon no termination of the plural number is more common than -n: tungan, tongues; steorran, stars. Of this termination we have evident remains in the words oxen, hosen, shoon, eyne, words more or less antiquated. This, perhaps, is no true plural. In welk-in = the clouds, the original singular form is lost.

s. 203. Men, feet, teeth, mice, lice, geese.—In these we have some of the oldest words in the language. If these were, to a certainty, true plurals, we should have an appearance somewhat corresponding to the so-called weak and strong tenses of verbs; viz., one series of plurals formed by a change of the vowel, and another by the addition of the sibilant. The word kye, used in Scotland for cows, is of the same class. The list in Anglo-Saxon of words of this kind is different from that of the present English.

Sing. Plur.

Freónd Frýnd Friends. Feónd Fynd Foes. Niht Niht Nights. Bóc Béc Books. Burh Byrig Burghs. Bróc Bréc Breeches. Turf Týrf Turves.

s. 204. Brethren.—Here there are two changes. 1. The alteration of the vowel. 2. The addition of -en. Mr. Guest quotes the forms brethre and brothre from the Old English. The sense is collective rather than plural.

Peasen = pulse.—As children is a double form of one sort (r + en), so is peasen a double form of another (s + en); pea, pea-s, pea-s-en. Wallis speaks to the singular power of the form in -s;—"Dicunt nonnulli a pease, pluraliter peasen; at melius, singulariter a pea, pluraliter pease."—P. 77. He might have added, that, theoretically, pease was the proper singular form; as shown by the Latin pis-um.

Pullen = poultry.

Lussurioso.—What? three-and-twenty years in law!

Vendice.—I have known those who have been five-and-fifty, and all about pullen and pigs.—"Revenger's Tragedy," iv. 1.

If this were a plural form, it would be a very anomalous one. The -en, however, is no more a sign of the plural than is the -es in rich-es (richesse.) The proper form is in -ain or -eyn.

A false theefe, That came like a false fox, my pullain to kill and mischeefe. "Gammer Gurton's Needle," v. 2.

Chickens.—A third variety of the double inflection (en + s), with the additional peculiarity of the form chicken being used, at present, almost exclusively in the singular number, although, originally, it was, probably, the plural of chick. So Wallis considered it:—"At olim etiam per -en vel -yn formabant pluralia; quorum pauca admodum adhuc retinemus. Ut, an ox, a chick, pluralitur oxen, chicken (sunt qui dicunt in singulari chicken, et in plurali chickens)." Chick, chick-en, chick-en-s.

Fern.—According to Wallis the -n in fer-n is the -en in oxen, in other words a plural termination:—"A fere (filix) pluraliter fern (verum nunc plerumque fern utroque numero dicitur, sed et in plurali ferns); nam fere et feres prope obsoleta sunt." Subject to this view, the word fer-n-s would exhibit the same phenomenon as the word chicken-s. It is doubtful, however, whether Wallis's view be correct. A reason for believing the -n to be radical is presented by the Anglo-Saxon form fearn, and the Old High German, varam.

Women.—Pronounced wimmen, as opposed to the singular form woomman. Probably an instance of accommodation.

Houses.—Pronounced houz-ez. The same peculiarity in the case of s and z, as occurs between f and v in words like life, lives, &c.

Paths, youths.—Pronounced padhz, yoodhz. The same peculiarity in the case of th and dh, as occurs between s and z in the words house, houses. "Finita in f plerumque alleviantur in plurali numero, substituendo v; ut wife, wives, &c. Eademque alleviatio est etiam in s et th, quamvis retento charactere, in house, cloth, path."

s. 205. The words sounded houz-ez, padh-z, yoodh-z, taken along with the extract from Wallis, lead us to an important class of words.—s. 199 b.

s. 206. Certain words ending in f, like loaf, wife, &c.

The regular plural of these would be loafs, wifes, pronounced loafce, wifce, &c.

But this is not the case. The sound added to the final f is the sound of z, not that of s.

And the plurals are sounded loavz, wivz (wivez, weivz).

Furthermore, the sound of the final f is changed to that of v; in other words, the first of the two letters is accommodated to the second, in violation to the rule of s. 199 b.

Can this be explained? Perhaps it can. In the Swedish language the letter f has the sound of v; so that staf is sounded stav.

Again, in the allied languages the words in question end in the flat (not the sharp) mute,—weib, laub, calb, halb, stab, &c. = wife, leaf, calf, half, staff.

This makes it probable that, originally, the f in wife, loaf, &c. was sounded as v; so that the singular forms were wive, loav.

If so, the plural is perfectly normal; it being the singular form on which the irregularity lies.

* * * * *

CHAPTER IV.

ON THE CASES.

s. 207. The extent to which there are, in the English language, cases, depends on the meaning which we attach to the word case. In the term a house of a father, the idea expressed by the words of a father, is an idea of relation between them and the word house. This idea is an idea of property or possession. The relation between the words father and house may be called the possessive relation. This relation, or connexion, between the two words, is expressed by the preposition of.

In the term a father's house, the idea is, there or thereabouts, the same; the relation or connexion between the two words being the same. The expression, however, differs. In a father's house the relation, or connexion, is expressed, not by a preposition, but by a change of form, father becoming father's.

He gave the house to a father.—Here the words father and house stand in another sort of relationship, the relationship being expressed by the preposition to. The idea to a father differs from the idea of a father, in being expressed in one way only; viz., by the preposition. There is no second mode of expressing it by a change of form, as was done with father's.

The father taught the child.—Here there is neither preposition nor change of form. The connexion between the words father and child is expressed by the arrangement only.

s. 208. Now if the relation alone between two words constitute a case, the words a child, to a father, of a father, and father's, are all equally cases; of which one may be called the accusative, another the dative, a third the genitive, and so on.

Perhaps, however, the relationship alone does not constitute a case. Perhaps there is a necessity of either the addition of a preposition (as in of a father), or of a change in form (as in father's). In this case (although child be not so) father's, of a father, and to a father, are all equally cases.

Now it has long been remarked, that if the use of a preposition constitute a case, there must be as many cases in a language as there are prepositions, and that "above a man, beneath a man, beyond a man, round about a man, within a man, without a man, shall be cases as well as of a man, to a man, and with a man."

s. 209. For etymological purposes, therefore, it is necessary to limit the meaning of the word case; and, as a sort of definition, it may be laid down that where there is no change of form there is no case. With this remark, the English language may be compared with the Latin.

Latin. English.

Sing. Nom. Pater a father. Gen. Patris a father's. Dat. Patri to a father. Acc. Patrem a father. Abl. Patre from a father.

Here, since in the Latin language there are five changes of form, whilst in English there are but two, there are (as far, at least, as the word pater and father are concerned) three more cases in Latin than in English.

It does not, however, follow that because in the particular word father we have but two cases, there may not be other words wherein there are more than two.

s. 210. Neither does it follow, that because two words may have the same form they are necessarily in the same case; a remark which leads to the distinction between a real and an accidental identity of form.

In the language of the Anglo-Saxons the genitive cases of the words smidh, ende, and daeg, were respectively, smidhes, endes, and daeges; whilst the nominative plurals were, smidhas, endas, and daegas.

But when a change took place, by which the vowel of the last syllable in each word was ejected, the result was, that the forms of the genitive singular and the nominative plural, originally different, became one and the same; so that the identity of the two cases is an accident.

This fact relieves the English grammarian from a difficulty. The nominative plural and the genitive singular are, in the present language of England, identical; the apostrophe in father's being a mere matter of orthography. However, there was once a difference. This modifies the previous statement, which may now stand thus:—for a change of case there must be a change of form existing or presumed.

s. 211. The number of our cases and the extent of language over which they spread.—In the English language there is undoubtedly a nominative case. This occurs in substantives, adjectives, and pronouns (father, good, he) equally. It is found in both numbers.

s. 212. Accusative.—Some call this the objective case. The words him and them (whatever they may have been originally) are now (to a certain extent) true accusatives. The accusative case is found in pronouns only. Thee, me, us, and you are, to a certain extent, true accusatives. These are accusative thus far: 1. They are not derived from any other case. 2. They are distinguished from the forms I, my, &c. 3. Their meaning is accusative. Nevertheless, they are only imperfect accusatives. They have no sign of case, and are distinguished by negative characters only.

One word in the present English is probably a true accusative in the strict sense of the term, viz., the word twain = two. The -n in twai-n is the -n in hine = him and hwone = whom. This we see from the following inflection:—

Neut. Masc. Fem.

_N. and Acc._ Twá, Twégen, Twá. \_ __/ / _Abl. and Dat._ Twám, Twaem. _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.

s. 213. Dative.—In the antiquated word whilom (at times), we have a remnant of the old dative in -m. The sense of the word is abverbial; its form, however, is that of a dative case.

s. 214. Genitive.—Some call this the possessive case. It is found in substantives and pronouns (father's, his), but not in adjectives. It is formed like the nominative plural, by the addition of the lene sibilant (father, fathers; buck, bucks); or if the word end in -s, by that of -es (boxes, judges, &c.) It is found in both numbers: the men's hearts; the children's bread. In the plural number, however, it is rare; so rare, indeed, that wherever the plural ends in s (as it almost always does), there is no genitive. If it were not so, we should have such words as fatherses, foxeses, princeses, &c.

s. 215. Instrumental.—The following extracts from Rask's "Anglo-Saxon Grammar," teach us that there exist in the present English two powers of the word spelt t-h-e, or of the so-called definite article—"The demonstrative pronouns are thaet, se, seó (id, is, ea), which are also used for the article; and this, thes, theós (hoc, hic, haec). They are thus declined:—

Neut. Masc. Fem. Neut. Masc. Fem.

_Sing N._ thaet se seó this thes theós. _A._ thaet thone thá this thisne thás. \_ __/ \__ __/ / / _Abl._ thý thaere thise thisse. _D._ thám thaere thisum thisse. _G._ thaes thaere thises thisse. \__ __/ \__ __/ / / _Plur. N. and A._ thá thás. _Abl. and D._ thám thisum. _G._ thára. thissa.

"The indeclinable the is often used instead of thaet, se, seó, in all cases, but especially with a relative signification, and, in later times, as an article. Hence the English article the.

"thý seems justly to be received as a proper ablativus instrumenti, as it occurs often in this character, even in the masculine gender; as, mid thý áthe = with that oath ("Inae Leges," 53). And in the same place in the dative, on thaem áthe = in that oath."—Pp. 56, 57.

Hence the the that has originated out of the Anglo-Saxon thý is one word; whilst the the that has originated out of the Anglo-Saxon the, another. The latter is the common article: the former the the in expressions like all the more, all the better = more by all that, better by all that, and the Latin phrases eo majus, eo melius.

That why is in the same case with the instrumental the ( = thý) may be seen from the following Anglo-Saxon inflexion of the interrogative pronoun:—

Neut. Masc. N. Hwaet Hwá A. Hwaet Hwone (hwaene). / / Abl. Hwi D. Hwám (hwaem) G. Hwaes.

Hence, then, in the and why we have instrumental ablatives, or, simply, instrumentals.

s. 216. The determination of cases.—How do we determine cases? In other words, why do we call him and them accusatives rather than datives or genitives? By one of two means; viz., either by the sense or the form.

Suppose that in the English language there were ten thousand dative cases and as many accusatives. Suppose, also, that all the dative cases ended in -m, and all the accusatives in some other letter. It is very evident that, whatever might be the meaning of the words him and them their form would be dative. In this case the meaning being accusatives, and the form dative, we should doubt which test to take.

My own opinion is, that it would be convenient to determine cases by the form of the word alone; so that, even if a word had a dative sense only once, where it had an accusative sense ten thousand times, such a word should be said to be in the dative case. Now the words him and them (to which we may add whom) were once dative cases;[48] -m in Anglo-Saxon being the sign of the dative case. In the time of the Anglo-Saxons their sense coincided with their form. At present they are dative forms with an accusative meaning. Still, as the word give takes after it a dative case, we have, even now, in the sentence, give it him, give it them, remnants of the old dative sense. To say give it to him, to them, is unnecessary and pedantic: neither do I object to the expression, whom shall I give it? If ever the formal test become generally recognised and consistently adhered to, him, them, and whom will be called datives with a latitude of meaning; and then the only true and unequivocal accusatives in the English language will be the forms you, thee, us, me, and twain.

s. 217. Analysis of cases.—In the word children's we are enabled to separate the word into three parts. 1. The root child. 2. The plural signs r and en. 3. The sign of the genitive case, s. In this case the word is said to be analysed, since we not only take it to pieces, but also give the respective powers of each of its elements; stating which denotes the case, and which the number. Although it is too much to say that the analysis of every case of every number can be thus effected, it ought always to be attempted.

s. 218. The true nature of the genitive form in 's.—It is a common notion that the genitive form father's is contracted from father his. The expression in our liturgy, for Jesus Christ his sake, which is merely a pleonastic one, is the only foundation for this assertion. As the idea, however, is not only one of the commonest, but also one of the greatest errors in etymology, the following three statements are given for the sake of contradiction to it.

1. The expression the Queen's Majesty is not capable of being reduced to the Queen his Majesty.

2. In the form his itself, the s has precisely the power that it has in father's, &c. Now his cannot be said to arise out of he + his.

3. In the Slavonic, Lithuanic, and classical tongues, the genitive ends in s, just as it does in English; so that even if the words father his would account for the English word father's, it would not account for the Sanskrit genitive pad-as, of a foot; the Zend dughdhar-s, of a daughter; the Lithuanic dugter-s; the Greek [Greek: odont-os]; the Latin dent-is, &c.

* * * * *

CHAPTER V.

THE PERSONAL PRONOUNS.

s. 219. I, we, us, me, thou, ye.—These constitute the true personal pronouns. From he, she, and it, they differ in being destitute of gender.

These latter words are demonstrative rather than personal, so that there are in English true personal pronouns for the first two persons only.

s. 220. The usual declension of the personal pronouns is exceptionable. I and me, thou and ye, stand in no etymological relations to each other. The true view of the words is, that they are not irregular but defective. I has no oblique, and me no nominative case. And so it is with the rest.

s. 221. You.—As far as the practice of the present mode of speech is concerned, the word you is a nominative form; since we say you move, you are moving, you were speaking.

Why should it not be treated as such? There is no absolute reason why it should not. The Anglo-Saxon form for you was eow, for ye, ge. Neither bears any sign of case at all, so that, form for form, they are equally and indifferently nominative and accusative. Hence, it, perhaps, is more logical to say that a certain form (you), is used either as a nominative or accusative, than to say that the accusative case is used instead of a nominative. It is clear that you can be used instead of ye only so far as it is nominative in power.

Ye.—As far as the evidence of such expressions as get on with ye is concerned, the word ye is an accusative form. The reasons why it should or should not be treated as such are involved in the previous paragraph.

s. 222. Me.—carrying out the views just laid down, and admitting you to be a nominative, or quasi-nominative case, we may extend the reasoning to the word me, and call it also a secondary or equivocal nominative; inasmuch as such phrases as it is me = it is I are common.

Now to call such expressions incorrect English is to assume the point. No one says that c'est moi is bad French, and that c'est je is good.

s. 223. Caution.—Observe, however, that the expression it is me = it is I will not justify the use of it is him, it is her = it is he and it is she. Me, ye, you, are what may be called indifferent forms, i.e., nominative as much as accusative, and accusative as much as nominative. Him and her, on the other hand, are not indifferent. The -m and -r are respectively the signs of cases other than the nominative.

s. 224. Again: the reasons which allow the form you to be considered as a nominative plural, on the strength of its being used for ye, will not allow it to be considered a nominative singular on the strength of its being used for thou.

s. 225. In phrases like you are speaking, &c., even when applied to a single individual, the idea is really plural; in other words, the courtesy consists in treating one person as more than one, and addressing him as such, rather than in using a plural form in a singular sense. It is certain that, grammatically considered, you = thou is a plural, since the verb with which it agrees is plural:—you are speaking, not you art speaking.

* * * * *

CHAPTER VI.

ON THE TRUE REFLECTIVE PRONOUN IN THE GOTHIC LANGUAGES, AND ON ITS ABSENCE IN ENGLISH.

s. 226. A true reflective pronoun is wanting in English. In other words, there are no equivalents to the Latin forms sui, sibi, se.

Nor yet are there any equivalents to the forms suus, sua, suum: since his and her are the equivalents to ejus and illius, and are not adjectives but genitive cases.

At the first view, this last sentence seems unnecessary. It might seem superfluous to state, that, if there were no such primitive form as se, there could be no such secondary form as suus.

Such, however, is not the case. Suus might exist in the language, and yet se be absent; in other words, the derivative form might have continued whilst the original one had become extinct.

Such is really the case with the Old Frisian. The reflective personal form, the equivalent to se, is lost, whilst the reflective possessive form, the equivalent to suus, is found. In the Modern Frisian, however, both forms are lost.

* * * * *

CHAPTER VII.

THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS, &c.

s. 227. The demonstrative pronouns are, 1. He, it. 2. She. 3. This, that. 4. The.

He, she, and it, generally looked on as personal, are here treated as demonstrative pronouns, for the following reasons.

1. The personal pronouns form an extremely natural class, if the pronouns of the two first persons be taken by themselves. This is not the case if they be taken along with he, it, and she.

2. The idea expressed by he, it, and she is naturally that of demonstrativeness. In the Latin language is, ea, id; ille, illa, illud; hic, haec, hoc, are demonstrative pronouns in sense, as well as in declension.

3. The plural forms they, them, in the present English, are the plural forms of the root of that, a true demonstrative pronoun; so that even if he, she, and it could be treated as personal pronouns, they could not.

4. The word she has grown out of the Anglo-Saxon seó. Now seó was in Anglo-Saxon the feminine form of the definite article; the definite article itself being originally a demonstrative pronoun.

s. 228. Compared with the Anglo-Saxon the present English stands as follows:—

She.—The Anglo-Saxon form heó, being lost to the language, is replaced by the feminine article seó.

s. 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 praestat quod in aliis possessivis. Similiter autem his pro hee's eodem errore quo nonnunquam bin pro been; item whose pro who's eodem errore quo done, gone, knowne, growne, &c., pro doen, goen, knowen, vel do'n, go'n, know'n, grow'n; utrobique contra analogiam linguae; sed usu defenditur."—Wallis, c.v.

It.—Changed from the Anglo-Saxon hit, by the ejection of h. The t is no part of the original word, but a sign of the neuter gender, forming it regularly from he. The same neuter sign is preserved in the Latin id and illud.

Its.—In the course of time the nature of the neuter sign t, in it, the form being found in but a few words, became misunderstood. Instead of being looked on as an affix, it passed for part of the original word. Hence was formed from it the anomalous genitive its superseding the Saxon his. The same was the case with—

Hers.—The r is no part of the original word, but the sign of the dative case. These formations are of value in the history of cases.

s. 230. Theirs.—In the same predicament with hers and its; either the case of an adjective, or a case formed from a case.

Than or then, and there.—Although now adverbs, they were once demonstrative pronouns, in a certain case and in a certain gender, viz., than and then masculine accusative and singular, there feminine dative and singular.

s. 231. An exhibition of the Anglo-Saxon declension is the best explanation of the English. Be it observed, that the cases marked in italics are found in the present language.

I.

Se, 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 thaet ( = that).

II.

thaet ( = that, the), and this ( = this).

Neut. Masc. Fem. Neut. Masc. Fem.

Sing. Nom. thaet — — this thes theós. Acc. thaet thone thâ this thisne thás. Abl. thy thy thaere. thise thise thisse. Dat. thám thám thaere. thisum thisum thisse. Gen. thaes thaes thaere. thises thises thisse. / / / / Plur. Nom. Acc. thá. thás. Abl. Dat. thám. thisum. Gen. thára. thissa.

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.

the (the)—Undeclined, and used for all cases and genders.

s. 232. These.—Here observe—

1st. That the s is no inflection, but a radical part of the word, like the s in geese.

2nd. That the Anglo-Saxon form is thás.

These facts create difficulties in respect to the word these. Mr. Guest's view is, perhaps, the best; viz., that the plural element of the word is the final -e, and that this -e is the old English and Anglo-Saxon adjective plural; so that thes-e is formed from this, as gode ( = boni) is from god ( = bonus).

The nominative plural in the Old English adjective ended in -e; as,

Singular. Plural. M. F. N. M. F. N. God, god, god, gode.

In Old English MSS. this plural in -e is general. It occurs not only in adjectives and pronouns as a regular inflection, but even as a plural of the genitive his, that word being treated as a nominative singular; so that hise is formed from his, as sui from suus, or as eji might have been formed from ejus; provided that in the Latin language this last word had been mistaken for a nominative singular. The following examples are Mr. Guest's.

1. In these lay a gret multitude of syke men, blinde, crokid, and drye.—Wicliffe, Jon. v.

2. In all the orders foure is non that can So much of dalliance and faire language, He hadde ymade ful many a marriage— His tippet was ay farsed ful of knives, And pinnes for to given faire wives.—Chau., Prol.

3. And al the cuntre of Judee wente out to him, and alle men of Jerusalem.—Wicliffe, Mark i.

4. He ghyueth lif to alle men, and brething, and alle thingis; and made of von al kynde of men to inhabit on al the face of the erthe.—Wicliffe, Dedis of Apostlis, xvii.

5. That fadres sone which alle thinges wrought; And all, that wrought is with a skilful thought, The Gost that from the fader gan procede, Hath souled hem.—Chau., The Second Nonnes Tale.

6. And alle we that ben in this aray And maken all this lamentation, We losten alle our husbondes at that toun.—Chau., The Knightes Tales.

7. A good man bryngeth forth gode thingsis of good tresore.—Wicliffe, Matt. xii.

8. So every good tree maketh gode fruytis, but an yvel tree maketh yvel fruytes. A good tree may not mak yvel fruytis, neither an yvel tree may make gode fruytis. Every tree that maketh not good fruyt schal be cut down.—Wicliffe, Matt. vii.

9. Men loveden more darknessis than light for her werkes weren yvele, for ech man that doeth yvel, hateth the light.—Wicliffe, John iii.

10. And othere seedis felden among thornes wexen up and strangliden hem, and othere seedis felden into good lond and gaven fruyt, sum an hundred fold, another sixty fold, an other thritty fold, &c.—Wicliffe, Matt. xiii.

11. Yet the while he spake to the puple lo his mother and hise brethren stonden withoute forth.—Wicliffe, Mat. xii.

12. And hise disciplis camen and taken his body.—Wicliffe, Matt., xiv.

13. When thise Bretons tuo were fled out of this lond Ine toke his feaute of alle, &c.—Rob Brunne, p. 3.

14. This is thilk disciple that bereth witnessyng of these thingis, and wroot them.—Wicliffe, John xxi.

15. Seye to us in what powers thou doist these thingis, and who is he that gaf to thee this power.—Wicliffe, Luke xx.

s. 233. Those.—Perhaps the Anglo-Saxon thá with s added. Perhaps the thás from this with its power altered. Rask, in his Anglo-Saxon Grammar, writes "from this we find, in the plural, thaes for thás. From which afterwards, with a distinction in signification, these and those." The English form they is illustrated by the Anglo-Saxon form dhage = thá. The whole doctrine of the forms in question has yet to assume a satisfactory shape.

The present declension of the demonstrative pronouns is as follows:—

A.

She.—Defective in the oblique cases.

B.

He.

Masc. Neut. Fem. Nom. He It (from hit) — Acc. Him It Her. Dat. Him — Her. Gen. His — Her. Secondary Gen. — Its Hers.

No plural form.

C.

I.

That.

Neut. Masc. Fem. Sing. Nom. That — — Acc. That Than, then[49] — Dat. — — There.[49] Instrumental Thence. Plur. Nom. They.[50] Acc. Them.[50] Gen. Their.[50] Secondary Gen. Theirs.[50]

II.

Singular, This. Plural, These.

III.

Those.

IV.

The—Undeclined.

* * * * *

CHAPTER VIII.

THE RELATIVE, INTERROGATIVE, AND CERTAIN OTHER PRONOUNS.

s. 234. In the relative and interrogative pronouns, who, what, whom, whose, we have, expressed by a change of form, a neuter gender, what; a dative case whom; and a genitive case, whose: the true power of the s (viz., as the sign of a case) being obscured by the orthographical addition of the e mute.