To these may be added, 1. the adverb why, originally the ablative form hvi (quo modo? quâ viâ?). 2. The adverb where, a feminine dative, like there. 3. When, a masculine accusative (in Anglo-Saxon hwaene), and analogous to then.

The two sounds in the Danish words hvi, hvad, &c., and the two sounds in the English, what, when (Anglo-Saxon, hwaet, hwaene) account for the forms why and how. In the first the w alone, in the second the h alone, is sounded. The Danish for why is hvi, pronounced vi.

s. 235. The following remarks (some of them not strictly etymological) apply to a few of the remaining pronouns.

Same.—Wanting in Anglo-Saxon, where it was replaced by the word ylca, ylce. Probably derived from the Norse.

Self.—In myself, thyself, herself, ourselves, yourselves, a substantive (or with a substantival power), and preceded by a genitive case. In himself and themselves an adjective (or with an adjectival power), and preceded by an accusative case. Itself is equivocal, since we cannot say whether its elements are it and self, or its and self; the s having been dropped in utterance. It is very evident that either the form like himself, or the form like thyself, is exceptionable; in other words, that the use of the word is inconsistent. As this inconsistency is as old as the Anglo-Saxons, the history of the word gives us no elucidation. In favour of the forms like myself (self being a substantive), are the following facts:—

1. The plural word selves, a substantival, and not an adjectival form.

2. The Middle High German phrases mîn lîp, dîn lîp, my body, thy body, equivalent in sense to myself, thyself.

3. The circumstance that if self be dealt with as a substantive, such phrases as my own self, his own great self, &c., can be used; whereby the language is a gainer.

"Vox self, pluraliter selves, quamvis etiam pronomen a quibusdam censeatur (quoniam ut plurimum per Latinum ipse redditur), est tamen plane nomen substantivum, cui quidem vix aliquod apud Latinos substantivum respondet; proxime tamen accedet vox persona vel propria persona ut my self, thy self, our selves, your selves, &c. (ego ipse, tu ipse, nos ipsi, vos ipsi, &c.), ad verbum mea persona, tua persona, &c. Fateor tamen himself, itself, themselves, vulgo dici pro his-self, its-self, theirselves; at (interposito own) his own self, &c., ipsius propria persona, &c."—Wallis. c. vii.

4. The fact that many persons actually say hisself and theirselves.

Whit.—As in the phrase not a whit. This enters in the compound pronouns aught and naught.

One.—As in the phrase one does so and so. From the French on. Observe that this is from the Latin homo, in Old French hom, om. In the Germanic tongues man is used in the same sense: man sagt = one says = on dit. One, like self and other, is so far a substantive, that it is inflected. Gen. sing, one's own self: plural, my wife and little ones are well.

Derived pronouns.—Any, in Anglo-Saxon, aenig. In Old High German we have einîc = any, and einac = single. In Anglo-Saxon ânega means single. In Middle High German einec is always single. In New High German einig means, 1. a certain person (quidam), 2. agreeing; einzig, meaning single. In Dutch ênech has both meanings. This indicates the word án, one, as the root of the word in question.

Compound pronouns.—Which, as has been already stated more than once, is most incorrectly called the neuter of who. Instead of being a neuter, it is a compound word. The adjective leiks, like, is preserved in the Moeso-Gothic words galeiks and missaleiks. In Old High German the form is lih, in Anglo-Saxon lic. Hence we have Moeso-Gothic hvêleiks; Old High German, huelih; Anglo-Saxon, huilic and hvilc; Old Frisian, hwelik; Danish, hvilk-en; German, welch; Scotch, whilk; English, which. The same is the case with—

1. Such.—Moeso-Gothic, svaleiks; Old High German, sôlîh; Old Saxon, sulîc; Anglo-Saxon, svilc; German, solch; English, such. Rask's derivation of the Anglo-Saxon swilc from swa-ylc, is exceptionable.

2. Thilk.—An old English word, found in the provincial dialects, as thick, thuck, theck, and hastily derived by Tyrwhitt, Ritson, and Weber, from se ylca, is found in the following forms: Moeso-Gothic, théleiks; Norse, thvilikr.

3. Ilk.—Found in the Scotch, and always preceded by the article; the ilk, or that ilk, meaning the same. In Anglo-Saxon this word is ycla, preceded also by the article se ylca, seó ylce, thaet ylce. In English, as seen above, the word is replaced by same. In no other Gothic dialect does it occur. According to Grimm, this is no simple word, but a compound one, of which some such word as ei is the first, and lîc the second element.

Aught.—In Moeso-Gothic is found the particle, aiv, ever, but only in negative propositions; ni (not) preceding it. Its Old High German form is êo, io; in Middle High German, ie; in New High German, je; in Old Saxon, io; in Anglo-Saxon, â; in Norse, ae. Combined with this particle the word whit (thing) gives the following forms: Old High German, êowiht; Anglo-Saxon, âviht; Old Frisian, âwet; English aught. The word naught is aught preceded by the negative particle.

Each.—The particle gi enters, like the particle in the composition of pronouns. Old High German, êogalîher, every one; êocalih, all; Middle High German, iegelich; New High German, jeglich; Anglo-Saxon, aelc; English, each; the l being dropped, as in which and such. Aelc, as the original of the English each and the Scotch ilka,[51] must by no means be confounded with the word ylce, the same.

Every in Old English, everich, everech, everilk one, is aelc, preceded by the particle ever. (Grimm. D. G. iii. 54.)

Either.—Old High German, êogahuedar; Middle High German, iegeweder; Anglo-Saxon, aeghvaedher, aegdher; Old Frisian, eider.

Neither.—The same with the negative article prefixed. Neither : either :: naught : aught.

s. 236. Other, whether.—These words, although derived forms, being simpler than some that have preceded, might fairly have been dealt with before. They make, however, a transition from the present to the succeeding chapter, and so find a place here.

A. First, it may be stated of them that the idea which they express is not that of one out of many, but that of one out of two.

1. In Sanscrit there are two forms, a) kataras, the same word as whether, meaning which out of two; b) katamas, which out of many. So also êkateras, one out of two; êkatamas, one out of many. In Greek the Ionic form [Greek: koteros (poteros]; in Latin, uter, neuter, alter; and in Moeso-Gothic, hvathar, have the same form and the same meaning.

2. In the Scandinavian language the word anden, Dano-Saxon, annar, Iceland. corresponds to the English word second, and not the German zweite: e.g., Karl den Anden, Charles the Second. Now anthar is the older form of other.

B. Secondly, it may be stated of them, that the termination -er is the same termination that we find in the comparative degree.

1. The idea expressed by the comparative degree is the comparison, not of many but of two things; this is better than that.

2. In all the Indo-European languages where there are pronouns in -ter, there is also a comparative degree in -ter. See next chapter.

3. As the Sanscrit form kataras corresponds with the comparative degree, where there is the comparison of two things with each other; so the word katamas is a superlative form; and in the superlative degree lies the comparison of many things with each other.

Hence other and whether (to which may be added either and neither) are pronouns with the comparative form.

Other has the additional peculiarity of possessing the plural form others. Hence, like self, it is, in the strictest sense, a substantival pronoun.

* * * * *

CHAPTER IX.

ON CERTAIN FORMS IN -ER.

s. 237. Preparatory to the consideration of the degrees of comparison, it is necessary to make some remarks upon a certain class of words, which, with considerable differences of signification, all agree in one fact, viz., all terminate in -er, or t-er.

1. Certain pronouns, as ei-th-er, n-ei-th-er, whe-th-er, or o-th-er.

2. Certain prepositions and adverbs, as ov-er, und-er, af-t-er.

3. Certain adjectives, with the form of the comparative, but the power of the positive degree; as upp-er, und-er, inn-er, out-er, hind-er.

4. All adjectives of the comparative degree; as wis-er, strong-er, bett-er, &c.

Now what is the idea common to all these words, expressed by the sign -er, and connecting the four divisions into one class? It is not the mere idea of comparison; although it is the comparative degree, to the expression of which the affix in question is more particularly applied. Bopp, who has best generalised the view of these forms, considers the fundamental idea to be that of duality. In the comparative degree we have a relation between one object and some other object like it, or a relation between two single elements of comparison: A is wiser than B. In the superlative degree we have a relation between one object and all others like it, or a relation between one single and one complex element of comparison: A is wiser than B, C, D, &c.

"As in comparatives a relation between two, and in superlatives a relation between many, lies at the bottom, it is natural that their suffixes should be transferred to other words, whose chief notion is individualised through that of duality or plurality."—"Vergleichende Grammatik," s. 292, Eastwick's and Wilson's Translation.

The most important proofs of the view adduced by Bopp are,—

1. The Sanskrit form kataras = which of two persons? is a comparative form; whilst katamas = which of more than two persons? a superlative form. Similarly, êkataras = one of two persons; êkatamas = one of more than two persons.

2. The Greek forms, [Greek: hekateros] = each (or either) out of two persons; whilst [Greek: hekastos] = each or any out of more than two persons.

s. 238. The more important of the specific modifications of the general idea involved in the comparison of two objects are,—

1. Contrariety: as in inner, outer, under, upper, over. In Latin the words for right and left end in -er,—dexter, sinister.

2. Choice in the way of an alternative; as either, neither, whether, other.

s. 239. Either, neither, other, whether.—It has just been stated that the general fundamental idea common to all these forms is that of choice between one of two objects in the way of an alternative. Thus far the termination -er in either, &c., is the termination -er in the true comparatives, brav-er, wis-er, &c. Either and neither are common pronouns. Other, like one, is a pronoun capable of taking the plural form of a substantive (others), and also that of the genitive case (the other's money, the other's bread). Whether is a pronoun in the almost obsolete form whether ( = which) of the two do you prefer, and a conjunction in sentences like whether will you do this or not? The use of the form others is recent. "They are taken out of the way as all other."—Job. "And leave their riches for other."—Psalms.

* * * * *

CHAPTER X.

THE COMPARATIVE DEGREE.

s. 240. There are four leading facts here,—

1. The older form in -s. In English we say old-er, bett-er, sweet-er; in Old High German they similarly said, alt-iro, bets-iro, suats-iro; but in Moeso-Gothic the forms were ald-iza, bat-iza, sut-iza.

2. Adverbs are susceptible of comparison; e.g.—Come as soon as you can, but do not come sooner than is convenient.

3. The Anglo-Saxon comparison of the adverbs is different from that of the adjectives; there being one form in -re and -este, another in -or and -ost respectively. Now the first of these was the form taken by adjectives: as se scearp-re sweord = the sharper sword, and se scearp-este sword = the sharpest sword. The second, on the other hand, was the form taken by adverbs: as, se sweord scyrdh scearp-or = the sword cuts sharper, and se sweord scyrdh scearp-ost = the sword cuts sharpest.

4. In the Anglo-Saxon, the following words exhibit a change of vowel.

Positive. Comparative. Superlative.

Lang, Lengre, Lengest. Long. Strang, Strengre, Strengest. Strong. Geong, Gyngre, Gyngest. Young. Sceort, Scyrtre, Scyrtest. Short. Heáh, Hyrre, Hyhst. High. Eald, Yldre, Yldest. Old.

s. 241. Now the fourth of these facts explains the present forms elder and eldest, the comparatives and superlative of old, besides which there are the regular forms old-er and old-est; between which there is, however, a difference in meaning—elder being used as a substantive, and having a plural form, elders.

s. 242. The abverbial forms in -or and -ost, as compared with the adjectival in -re, and -este explain the form rather. This rhymes to father; the a being full. Nevertheless, the positive form is rather meaning quick, easy = the classical root [Greek: rhad-] in [Greek: rhadios]. What we do quickly and willingly we do preferably. Now if the word rather were an adjective, the vowel of the comparative would be sounded as the a in fate, as it is, however, it is abverbial, and as such is properly sounded as the a in father.

The difference between the action of the small vowel in -re, and of the full in -or effects this difference, since o being a full vowel, it has the effect of making the a full also.

s. 243. The old form in -s will be considered, after notice has been taken of what may be called—

s. 244. Excess of expression.—Of this two samples have already been given: 1. in words like songstress; 2. in words like children. This may be called excess of expression; the feminine gender, in words like songstress, and the plural number, in words like children, being expressed twice over. In the vulgarism betterer for better, and in the antiquated forms worser for worse, and lesser for less, we have, in the case of the comparatives, as elsewhere, an excess of expression. In the old High German we have the forms betserôro, mêrôro, êrerera = better, more, ere.

s. 245. Better.—Although in the superlative form best there is a slight variation from the strict form of that degree, the word better is perfectly regular. So far, then, from truth are the current statements that the comparison of the words good, better, and best is irregular. The inflection is not irregular, but defective. As the statement that applies to good, better, and best applies to many words besides, it will be well in this place, once for all, to exhibit it in full.

s. 246. Difference between a sequence in logic and a sequence in etymology.—The ideas or notions of thou, thy, thee, are ideas between which there is a metaphysical or logical connexion. The train of such ideas may be said to form a sequence, and such a sequence may be called a logical one.

The words thou, thy, thee, are words between which there is a formal or an etymological connexion. A train of such words may be called a sequence, and such a sequence may be called an etymological one.

In the case of thou, thy, thee, the etymological sequence tallies with the logical one.

The ideas of I, my, and me are also in a logical sequence: but the forms I, my, and me are not altogether in an etymological one.

In the case of I, my, me, the etymological sequence does not tally (or tallies imperfectly) with the logical one.

This is only another way of saying that between the words I and me there is no connexion in etymology.

It is also only another way of saying, that, in the oblique cases, I, and, in the nominative case, me, are defective.

Now the same is the case with good, better, bad, worse, &c. Good and bad are defective in the comparative and superlative degrees; better and worse are defective in the positive; whilst between good and better, bad and worse, there is a sequence in logic, but no sequence in etymology.

s. 247. To return, however, to the word better; no absolute positive degree is found in any of the allied languages, and in none of the allied languages is there found any comparative form of good. Its root occurs in the following adverbial forms: Moeso-Gothic, bats; Old High German, pats; Old Saxon and Anglo-Saxon, bet; Middle High German, baz; Middle Dutch, bat, bet.

s. 248. Worse.—This word is one of two things.

1. It is a positive form with a comparative sense; in which case s is part of the root.

2. It is a comparative degree from the positive form wor- (vair-, wir-, vyr-), in which case s is the s of the Old Moeso-Gothic inflexion preserved in this single word.

s. 249. More.—In Anglo-Saxon this is mâ; in the English of the reign of Elizabeth it is moe; and in certain provincial dialects it is mo, at the present time.

Notwithstanding this, i.e., the form being positive, the power of the word has always been comparative, and meant more rather than much, or many.

s. 250. Less.—In Anglo-Saxon laessa and laes. Here there is no unequivocal sign of the comparative degree; what, then, is the nature of the word? Is it a positive form with a comparative power like moe? or is it an old comparative in -s? This is undecided. What does it come from? Grimm derives it from the Moeso-Gothic root lasiv = weak. His doctrine is doubtful. I cannot but believe that it comes from the same root as litt-le; where the old Frisian form litich, shows that the -l is no essential part of the word, and the Danish form lille gets rid of the t. Still the word is difficult; indeed it is unexplained.

s. 251. Near, nearer.—Anglo-Saxon, neah; comparative, nearre, near, nyr; superlative, nyhst, nehst. Observe, in the Anglo-Saxon positive and superlative, the absence of the r. This shows that the English positive near is the Anglo-Saxon comparative nearre, and that in the secondary comparative nearer, we have an excess of expression. It may be, however, that the r in near is a mere point of orthography, and that it is not pronounced; since, in the English language the words father and farther are, for the most part, pronounced alike.

s. 252. Farther.—Anglo-Saxon feor, fyrre, fyrrest. The th seems euphonic, inserted by the same process that gives the [delta] in [Greek: andros], from [Greek: aner] = man.

Further.—Confounded with farther, although in reality from a different word, fore. Old High German, furdir; New High German, der vordere; Anglo-Saxon, fyrdhre.

s. 253. Former.—A comparative formed from the superlative; forma being such. Consequently, an instance of excess of expression, combined with irregularity.

s. 254. In Moeso-Gothic spêdists means last, and spêdiza = later. Of the word spêdists two views may be taken. According to one it is the positive degree with the addition of st; according to the other, it is the comparative degree with the addition only of t. Now, Grimm and others lay down as a rule, that the superlative is formed, not directly from the positive, but indirectly through the comparative.

With the exception of worse and less, all the English comparatives end in -r: yet no superlative ends in -rt, the form being, not wise, wiser, wisert, but wise, wiser, wisest. This fact, without invalidating the notion just laid down, gives additional importance to the comparative forms in s; since it is from these, before they have changed to r, that we must suppose the superlatives to have been derived. The theory being admitted, we can, by approximation, determine the comparative antiquity of the superlative degree. It was introduced after the establishment of the comparative, and before the change of -s into -r.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XI.

THE SUPERLATIVE DEGREE.

s. 255. The Anglo-Saxon word for first was for-m-a.

The root was for = the Latin prae, the Greek [Greek: pro], and being the same combination which occurs in fore, fore-m-ost, &c.

The m was the Anglo-Saxon sign of the superlative degree.

It is the m in the Latin words pri-m-us, inti-m-us, exti-m-us, ulti-m-us, &c.

It occurs even in the Gothic tongues; in other words, besides for-m-a.

In short, m is an old sign of the superlative degree; probably older than the usual form, -st, discussed in s. 254. This has some important applications.

s. 256. Former.—This is a remarkable word: it is a comparative derived from the Anglo-Saxon superlative, and its analysis is for-m-er, with excess of inflexion.

s. 257. Nea-r-est.—Here the r is no part of the original root, as may be seen in s. 251. It has grown out of -ah pronounced as the a in father. The true forms are positive, neah; comparative, neah-er; superlative, neah-est. Such, to a certain extent, is really the case.

s. 258. Next.—The superlative of nigh, contracted from nigh-est. The Anglo-Saxon forms were neah, nyh-st, neh-st, nyh-ste. In Anglo-Saxon the letter h was pronounced strongly, and sounded like g or k. This fact is still shown in the spelling; as nigh. In the word next this sound is preserved, slightly changed into that of k; next = nek-st.

s. 259. Upmost, &c.—The common statement concerning words like upmost is, that they are compound words, formed by the addition of the word most: this, however, is more than doubtful.

The Anglo-Saxon language presents us with the following forms:—

Anglo-Saxon. English.

Innema (inn-ema), Inmost (in-m-ost). Ûtema (ût-ma), Outmost (out-m-ost). Sidhema (sidh-ema), Latest. Laetema (laet-ema), Latest. Nidhema (nidh-ema), Nethermost (neth-er-m-ost). Forma (for-ma), Foremost (fore-m-ost). Aeftema (aft-ema), Aftermost (aft-er-m-ost). Ufema (uf-ema), Upmost (up-m-ost). Hindema (hind-ema), Hindmost (hind-m-ost). Midema (mid-ema), Midmost (mid-m-ost).

Now the words in question show at once, that, as far as they are concerned, the m that appears in the last syllable of each has nothing to do with the word most.

From the words in question there was formed, in Anglo-Saxon, a regular superlative form in the usual manner; viz., by the addition of -st; as aefte-m-est, fyr-m-est, laete-m-est, sidh-m-est, yfe-m-est, ute-m-est, inne-m-est.

Hence, in the present English, the different parts of the syllable most (in words like upmost) come from different quarters. The m is the m in the Anglo-Saxon words innema, &c.; whilst the -st is the common sign of the superlative. Hence, in separating such words as midmost into its component parts, we should write

Mid-m-ost not mid-most. Ut-m-ost — ut-most. Up-m-ost — up-most. Fore-m-ost — fore-most. In-m-ost — in-most. Hind-m-ost — hind-most. Out-m-ost — out-most.

s. 260. In certain words, however, the syllable m-ost is added to a word already ending in -er; that is, already marked with the sign of the comparative degree.

Neth-er-m-ost. Hind-er-m-ost. Utt-er-m-ost. Out-er-m-ost. Upp-er-m-ost. Inn-er-m-ost.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XII.

THE CARDINAL NUMBERS.

s. 261. Generally speaking, the greater part of the cardinal numbers are undeclined. As far as number goes, this is necessary.

One is naturally and exclusively singular.

Two is naturally dual.

The rest are naturally and exclusively plural.

As to the inflection of gender and case, there is no reason why all the numerals should not be as fully inflected as the Latin unus, una, unum, unius. It is a mere habit of our language that they are not so in English.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XIII.

THE ORDINAL NUMBERS.

s. 262. By referring to s. 259, we see that -m was an early sign of the superlative degree. This bears upon the numerals seven, nine, and ten.

These are cardinal numbers. Nevertheless, the present chapter is the proper place for noticing them.

There is good reason for believing that the final -n is no part of the original root. Thus,—

a. Sev-en = the Latin sept-em, where the -m is equivalent to the -n. But in the Greek [Greek: hepta], and the Scandinavian syv, and sju, neither -n nor -m occur.

b. Ni-ne.—This same applies here. The Latin form is nov-em; but the Greek and Norse are [Greek: ennea] and niu.

c. Ten.—The older form is ti-h-un, in Latin de-c-em. The English -n is the Latin -m. Nevertheless, in the Greek and Norse the forms are [Greek: deka] and tuo.

s. 263. What explains this? The following hypothesis. Some of the best German authorities believe, that the -m, expressive of the superlative degree, was also used to denote the ordinal character (ordinality) of the numerals; so that the -m- in deci-m-us, was the -m- in ulti-m-us and exti-m-us. This is the first step in the explanation.

s. 264. The next is, to suppose that certain cardinal numerals have taken and retained the ordinal form; these being the—

Latin. English. Greek. Norse.

Sept-em, sev-en, as opposed to the [Greek: hepta] sjau. Nov-em, ni-ne " " [Greek: ennea] níu. Dec-em, te-n " " [Greek: deka] tíu.

I give no opinion as to the accuracy or erroneousness of this view.

s. 265. Thir-teen, &c., is three with ten added, or 3 + 10.

s. 266. Thir-ty, &c., is three tens (three decades), or 3 x 10. In Moeso-Gothic we find the -ty in the fuller form tig = [Greek: dek-as] in Greek.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XIV.

THE ARTICLES.

s. 267. In the generality of grammars the definite article the, and the indefinite article an, are the very first parts of speech that are considered. This is exceptionable. So far are they from being essential to language, that, in many dialects, they are wholly wanting. In Greek there is no indefinite, in Latin there is neither an indefinite nor a definite article. In the former language they say [Greek: aner tis] = a certain man: in the latter the words filius patris mean equally the son of the father, a son of a father, a son of the father, or the son of a father. In Moeso-Gothic and in Old Norse, there is an equal absence of the indefinite article; or, at any rate, if there be one at all, it is a different word from what occurs in English. In these the Greek [Greek: tis] is expressed by the Gothic root sum.

Now, since it is very evident that, as far as the sense is concerned, the words some man, a certain man, and a man, are much the same, an exception may be taken to the statement that in Greek and Moeso-Gothic there is no indefinite article. It may, in the present state of the argument, be fairly said that the words sum and [Greek: tis] are pronouns with a certain sense, and that a and an are no more; consequently, that in Greek the indefinite article is [Greek: tis], in Moeso-Gothic sum, and in English a or an.

A distinction, however, may be made. In the expression [Greek: aner tis] (anaer tis) = a certain man, or a man, and in the expression sum mann, the words sum and [Greek: tis] preserve their natural and original meaning; whilst in a man and an ox the words a and an are used in a secondary sense. These words, as is currently known, are one and the same, the n, in the form a, being ejected through a euphonic process. They are, moreover, the same words with the numeral one; Anglo-Saxon, án; Scotch, ane. Now, between the words a man and one man, there is a difference in meaning; the first expression being the most indefinite. Hence comes the difference between the English and Moeso-Gothic expressions. In the one the word sum has a natural, in the other, the word an has a secondary power.

The same reasoning applies to the word the. Compared with a man, the words the man are very definite. Compared, however, with the words that man, they are the contrary. Now, just as an and a have arisen out of the numeral one, so has the arisen out of the demonstrative pronoun thaet, or at least from some common root. It will be remembered that in Anglo-Saxon there was a form the, undeclined, and common to all the cases of all the numbers.

In no language in its oldest stage is there ever a word giving, in its primary sense, the ideas of a and the. As tongues become modern, some noun with a similar sense is used to express them. In the course of time a change of form takes place, corresponding to the change of meaning; e.g., one becomes an, and afterwards a. Then it is that articles become looked upon as separate parts of speech, and are dealt with accordingly. No invalidation of this statement is drawn from the Greek language. Although the first page of the etymology gives us [Greek: ho], [Greek: he], [Greek: to] (ho, hae, to), as the definite articles, the corresponding page in the syntax informs us, that, in the oldest stage of the language, [Greek: ho] (ho) = the, had the power of [Greek: houtos] (howtos) = this.

The origin of the articles seems uniform. In German ein, in Danish en, stand to one in the same relation that an does. The French un, Italian and Spanish uno, are similarly related to unus = one.

And as, in English, the, in German der, in Danish den, come from the demonstrative pronouns, so, in the classical languages, are the French le, the Italian il and lo, and the Spanish el, derived from the Latin demonstrative ille.

In his "Outlines of Logic," the present writer has given reasons for considering the word no (as in no man) an article.

That the, in expressions like all the more, all the better, &c., is no article, has already been shown.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XV.

DIMINUTIVES, AUGMENTATIVES, AND PATRONYMICS.

s. 268. Compared with the words lamb, man, and hill, the words lambkin, mannikin, and hillock convey the idea of comparative smallness or diminution. Now, as the word hillock = a little hill differs in form from hill, we have in English a series of diminutive forms, or diminutives.

The English diminutives may be arranged according to a variety of principles. Amongst others:

1. According to their form.—The word hillock is derived from hill, by the addition of a syllable. The word tip is derived from top, by the change of a vowel.

2. According to their meaning.—In the word hillock there is the simple expression of comparative smallness in size. In the word doggie for dog, lassie for lass, the addition of the -ie makes the word not so much a diminutive as a term of tenderness or endearment. The idea of smallness, accompanied, perhaps, with that of neatness, generally carries with it the idea of approbation; hence, the word clean in English, means, in German, little = kleine. The feeling of protection which is extended to small objects engenders the notion of endearment.

s. 269. The Greek word [Greek: meiosis] (meiôsis) means diminution; the Greek word [Greek: hupokorisma] (hypokorisma) means an endearing expression. Hence we get names for the two kinds of diminutives; viz., the term meiotic for the true diminutives, and the term hypocoristic for the diminutives of endearment.

3. According to their historical origin.—The syllable -ock, as in hillock, is of Anglo-Saxon and Gothic origin. The -et, as in lancet, is of French and classical origin.

4. According as they affect proper names, or common names.—Hawkin, Perkin, Wilkin, &c. In these words we have the diminutives of Hal, Peter, Will, &c.

s. 270. The diminutive forms of Gothic origin are the first to be considered.

1. Those formed by a change of vowel.—Tip, from top. The relation of the feminine to the masculine is allied to the ideas conveyed by many diminutives. Hence in the word kit, from cat, it is doubtful whether there be meant a female cat or a little cat. Kid is a diminutive form of goat.

2. Those formed by the addition of a letter or letters.—Of the diminutive characteristics thus formed the commonest, beginning from the simpler forms, are

Ie.—Almost peculiar to the Lowland Scotch; as daddie, lassie, minnie, wifie, mousie, doggie, boatie, &c.

Ock.—Bullock, hillock.

Kin.—Lambkin, mannikin, ladikin, &c. As is seen above, common in proper names.

En.—Chicken, kitten, from cock, cat. The notion of diminution, if indeed that be the notion originally conveyed, lies not in the -en, but in the vowel. In the word chicken, from cock, observe the effect of the small vowel on the c.

The consideration of words like duckling, and gosling, is purposely deferred.

The chief diminutive of classical origin is—

Et, as in trumpet, lancet, pocket; the word pock, as in meal-pock = a meal-bag, being found in the Scottish. From the French -ette, as in caissette, poulette.

The forms -rel, as in cockerel, pickerel, and -let, as in streamlet, require a separate consideration. The first has nothing to do with the Italian forms acquerella and coserella—themselves, perhaps, of Gothic, rather than of classical origin.

In the Old High-German there are a multitude of diminutive forms in -el; as ouga = an eye, ougili = a little eye; lied = a song, liedel = a little song. This indicates the nature of words like cockerel.

Even in English the diminutive power of -el can be traced in the following words:—

Soare = a deer in its third year. Sor-rel—a deer in its second year.—See "Love's Labour Lost," with the note.

Tiercel = a small sort of hawk, one-third less (tierce) than the common kind.

Kantle = small corner, from cant = a corner.—"Henry IV."

Hurdle; in Dutch horde; German, hurde. Hording, without the -l, is used in an allied sense by builders in English.

In the words in point we must assume an earlier form, cocker and piker, to which the diminutive form -el is affixed. If this be true, we have, in English, representatives of the diminutive form -el so common in the High Germanic dialects. Wolfer = a wolf, hunker = a haunch, flitcher = a flitch, teamer = a team, fresher = a frog,—these are north country forms of the present English.

The termination -let, as in streamlet, seems to be double, and to consist of the Gothic diminutive -l, and the French diminutive -t.

s. 271. Augmentatives.—Compared with capello = a hat, the Italian word capellone = a great hat, is an augmentative. The augmentative forms, pre-eminently common in the Italian language, often carry with them a depreciating sense.

The termination -rd (in Old High German, -hart), as in drunkard, braggart, laggard, stinkard, carries with it this idea of depreciation. In buzzard, and reynard, the name of the fox, it is simply augmentative. In wizard, from witch, it has the power of a masculine form.

The termination -rd, taken from the Gothic, appears in the modern languages of classical origin: French, vieillard; Spanish, codardo. From these we get, at secondhand, the word coward.

The word sweetheart is a derived word of this sort, rather than a compound word; since in Old High German and Middle High German, we have the corresponding form liebhart. Now the form for heart is in German not hart, but herz.

Words like braggadocio, trombone, balloon, being words of foreign origin, prove nothing as to the further existence of augmentative forms in English.

s. 272.—Patronymics.—In the Greek language the notion of lineal descent, in other words, the relation of the son to the father, is expressed by a particular termination; as [Greek: Peleus] (Peleus), [Greek: Peleides] (Peleidaes), the son of Peleus. It is very evident that this mode of expression is very different from either the English form Johnson = the son of John, or the Gaelic MacDonald = the son of Donald. In these last-named words, the words son and Mac mean the same thing; so that Johnson and MacDonald are not derived but compound words. This Greek way of expressing descent is peculiar, and the words wherein it occurs are classed together by the peculiar name patronymic; from pataer = a father, and onoma = a name.

Is there anything in English corresponding to the Greek patronymics?

Not in the present English? There was, however, in the Anglo-Saxon.

In the Anglo-Saxon, the termination -ing is as truly patronymic as [Greek: -ides] in Greek. In the Bible-translation the son of Elisha is called Elising. In the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle occur such genealogies as the following:—Ida waes Eopping, Eoppa Esing, Esa Inging, Inga Angenviting, Angenvit Alocing, Aloc Beonocing, Beonoc Branding, Brand Baeldaeging, Baeldaeg Vódening, Vóden Fridhowulfing, Fridhowulf Finning, Finn Godwulfing, Godwulf Geating = Ida was the son of Eoppa, Eoppa of Esa, Esa of Inga, Inga of Angenvit, Angenvit of Aloc, Aloc of Beonoc, Beonoc of Brand, Brand of Baeldaeg, Baeldaeg of Woden, Woden of Fridhowulf, Fridhowulf of Finn, Finn of Godwulf, Godwulf of Geat.—In Greek, [Greek: Ida en Eoppeides, Eoppa Eseides, Esa Ingeides, Inga Angenphiteides], &c. In the plural number these forms denote the race of; as Scyldingas = the Scyldings, or the race of Scyld, &c. Edgar Atheling means Edgar of the race of the nobles.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XVI.

GENTILE FORMS.

s. 273. The only word in the present English that requires explanation is the name of the principality Wales.

1. The form is plural, however much the meaning may be singular; so that the -s in Wale-s is the -s in fathers, &c.

2. It has grown out of the Anglo-Saxon from wealhas = foreigners, from wealh = a foreigner, the name by which the Welsh are spoken of by the Germans of England, just as the Italians are called Welsh by the Germans of Germany; and just as wal-nuts = foreign nuts, or nuces Galliae. Welsh = weall-isc = foreign, and is a derived adjective.

3. The transfer of the name of the people inhabiting a certain country to the country so inhabited, was one of the commonest processes in both Anglo-Saxon and Old English.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XVII.

ON THE CONNEXION BETWEEN THE NOUN AND VERB, AND ON THE INFLECTION OF THE INFINITIVE MOOD.

s. 274. In order to understand clearly the use of the so-called infinitive mood in English, it is necessary to bear in mind two facts, one a matter of logic, the other a matter of history.

In the way of logic, the difference between a noun and a verb is less marked than it is in the way of grammar.

Grammatically, the contrast is considerable. The inflection of nouns expresses the ideas of sex as denoted by gender, and of relation in place as denoted by cases. That of verbs rarely expresses sex, and never relations in place. On the other hand, however, it expresses what no noun ever does or can express; e.g., the relation of the agency to the individual speaking, by means of person; the time in which acts take place, by means of tense; and the conditions of their occurrence, by means of mood.

The idea of number is the only one that, on a superficial view, is common to these two important parts of speech.

s. 275. Logically, however, the contrast is inconsiderable. A noun denotes an object of which either the senses or the intellect can take cognizance, and a verb does no more. To move = motion, to rise = rising, to err = error, to forgive = forgiveness. The only difference between the two parts of speech is this, that, whereas a noun may express any object whatever, verbs can only express those objects which consist in an action. And it is this superadded idea of action that superadds to the verb the phenomena of tense, mood, person, and voice; in other words, the phenomena of conjugation.

s. 276. A noun is a word capable of declension only. A verb is a word capable of declension and conjugation also. The fact of verbs being declined as well as conjugated must be remembered. The participle has the declension of a noun adjective, the infinitive mood the declension of a noun substantive. Gerunds and supines, in languages where they occur, are only names for certain cases of the verb.

s. 277. Although in all languages the verb is equally capable of declension, it is not equally declined. The Greeks, for instance, used forms like

[Greek: to phthonein] = invidia. [Greek: tou phthonein] = invidiae. [Greek: en toi phthonein] = in invidia.

s. 278. Returning, however, to the illustration of the substantival character of the so-called infinitive mood, we may easily see—

[alpha]. That the name of any action may be used without any mention of the agent. Thus, we may speak of the simple fact of walking or moving, independently of any specification of the walker or mover.

[beta]. That, when actions are spoken of thus indefinitely, the idea of either person or number has no place in the conception; from which it follows that the so-called infinitive mood must be at once impersonal, and without the distinction of singular, dual, and plural.

[gamma]. That, nevertheless, the ideas of time and relation in space have place in the conception. We can think of a person being in the act of striking a blow, of his having been in the act of striking a blow, or of his being about to be in the act of striking a blow. We can also think of a person being in the act of doing a good action, or of his being from the act of doing a good action.

s. 279. This has been written to show that verbs of languages in general are as naturally declinable as nouns. What follows will show that the verbs of the Gothic languages in particular were actually declined, and that fragments of this declension remain in the present English.

The inflection of the verb in its impersonal (or infinitive state) consisted, in its fullest form, of three cases, a nominative (or accusative), a dative, and a genitive. The genitive is put last, because its occurrence in the Gothic languages is the least constant.

In Anglo-Saxon the nominative (or accusative) ended in -an, with a single n.

Lufian = to love = amare. Baernan = to burn = urere. Syllan = to give = dare.

In Anglo-Saxon the dative of the infinitive verb ended in -nne, and was preceded by the preposition to.

To lufienne = ad amandum. To baernenne = ad urendum. To syllanne = ad dandum.

The genitive, ending in -es, occurs only in Old High German and Modern High German, plâsannes, weinnenes.

s. 280. With these preliminaries we can take a clear view of the English infinitives. They exist under two forms, and are referable to a double origin.

1. The independent form.—This is used after the words can, may, shall, will, and some others, as, I can speak, I may go, I shall come, I will move. Here there is no preposition, and the origin of the infinitive is from the form in -an.

2. The prepositional form.—This is used after the majority of English verbs, as, I wish to speak, I mean to go, I intend to come, I determine to move. Here we have the preposition to and the origin of the infinitive is from the form -nne.

s. 281. Expressions like to err = error, to forgive = forgiveness, in lines like

"To err is human, to forgive divine,"

are very remarkable. They exhibit the phenomena of a nominative case having grown not only out of a dative but out of a dative plus its governing preposition.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XVIII.

ON DERIVED VERBS.

s. 282. Of the divisions of verbs into active and passive, transitive and intransitive, unless there be an accompanying change of form, etymology takes no cognisance. The forces of the auxiliary verbs, and the tenses to which they are equivalent, are also points of syntax rather than of etymology.

Four classes, however, of derived verbs, as opposed to simple, especially deserve notice.

I. Those ending in -en; as soften, whiten, strengthen, &c. Here the -en is a derivational affix; and not a representative of the Anglo-Saxon infinitive form -an (as lufian, baernan = to love, to burn), and the Old English -en (as tellen, loven).

II. Transitive verbs derived from intransitives by a change of the vowel of the root.

Primitive Intransitive Form. Derived Transitive Form.

Rise Raise. Lie Lay. Sit Set. Fall Fell. Drink Drench.

In Anglo-Saxon these words were more numerous than they are at present.

Intrans. Infinitive. Trans. Infinitive.

Yrnan, to run Aernan, to make to run. Byrnan, to burn Baernan, to make to burn. Drincan, to drink Drencan, to drench. Sincan, to sink Sencan, to make to sink. Liegan, to lie Lecgan, to lay. Sittan, to sit Settan, to set. Drífan, to drift Draefan, to drive. Feallan, to fall Fyllan, to fell. Weallan, to boil Wyllan, to make to boil. Fleogan, to fly A-fligan, to put to flight. Beogan, to bow Bígan, to bend. Faran, to go Feran, to convey. Wacan, to wake Weccan, to waken.

All these intransitives form their praeterite by a change of vowel; as sink, sank; all the transitives by the addition of d or t, as sell, sell'd.

III. Verbs derived from nouns by a change of accent; as to survéy, from a súrvey.

Nouns. Verbs. Nouns. Verbs. Ábsent absént. Éxtract extráct. Ábstract abstráct. Férment fermént. Áccent accént. Fréquent frequént. Áffix affíx. Ímport impórt. Aúgment augmént. Íncense incénse. Cólleague colléague. Ínsult insúlt. Cómpact compáct. Óbject objéct. Cómpound compóund. Pérfume perfúme. Cómpress compréss. Pérmit permít. Cóncert concért. Préfix prefíx. Cóncrete concréte. Prémise premíse. Cónduct condúct. Présage preságe. Cónfine confíne. Présent presént. Cónflict conflíct. Próduce prodúce. Cónserve consérve. Próject projéct. Cónsort consórt. Prótest protést. Cóntract contráct. Rébel rebél. Cóntrast contrást. Récord recórd. Cónverse convérse. Réfuse refúse. Cónvert convért. Súbject subjéct. Déscant descánt. Súrvey survéy. Désert desért. Tórment tormént. Dígest digést. Tránsfer transfér. Éssay essáy. Tránsport transpórt.

Walker attributes the change of accent to the influence of the participial termination -ing. All words thus affected are of foreign origin.

IV. Verbs formed from nouns by changing a final sharp consonant into its corresponding flat one; as,

The use to use, pronounced uze. The breath to breathe — breadhe. The cloth to clothe — clodhe.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XIX.

ON THE PERSONS.

s. 283. Compared with the Latin, the Greek, the Moeso-Gothic, and almost all the ancient languages, there is, in English, in respect to the persons of the verbs, but a very slight amount of inflection. This may be seen by comparing the English word call with the Latin voco.

Sing. Plur. Sing. Plur. 1. Voc-o Voc-amus. Call Call. 2. Voc-as Voc-atis. Call-est Call. 3. Voc-at Voc-ant. [52]Call-eth Call.

Here the Latins have different forms for each different person, whilst the English have forms for two only; and even of these one (callest) is becoming obsolete. With the forms voc-o, voc-amus, voc-atis, voc-ant, there is, in the current English, nothing correspondent.

In the word am, as compared with are and art, we find a sign of the first person singular.

In the old forms tellen, weren, &c., we have a sign of the plural number.

s. 284. In the Modern English, the Old English, and the Anglo-Saxon, the peculiarities of our personal inflections are very great. This may be seen from the following tables of comparison:—

Present Tense, Indicative Mood.

Moeso-Gothic.

1st person. 2nd person. 3rd person.

Singular. Sôkja Sôkeis Sôkeith—seek. Plural. Sôkjam Sôkeith Sokjand.

Old High German.

Singular. Prennu Prennîs Prennit—burn. Plural. Prennames Prennat Prennant.

Icelandic.

Singular. Kalla Kallar Kallar—call. Plural. Kôllum Kallith Kalla.

Old Saxon.

Singular. Sôkju Sôkîs Sôkîd—seek. Plural. Sôkjad Sôkjad Sôkjad.

Anglo-Saxon.

Singular. Lufige Lufast Lufadh. Plural. Lufiadh Lufiadh Lufiadh.

Old English.

Singular. Love Lovest Loveth. Plural. Loven Loven Loven.

Modern English.

Singular. Love Lovest Loveth (or Loves). Plural. Love Love Love.

s. 285. Herein remark; 1. the Anglo-Saxon addition of t in the second person singular; 2. the identity in form of the three persons of the plural number; 3. the change of -adh into -en in the Old English plural; 4. the total absence of plural forms in the Modern English; 5. the change of the th into s, in loveth and loves. These are points bearing especially upon the history of the English persons. The following points indicate a more general question:

1. The full form prennames in the newer Old High German, as compared with sôkjam in the old Moeso-Gothic.

2. The appearance of the r in Icelandic.

3. The difference between the Old Saxon and the Anglo-Saxon in the second person singular; the final t being absent in Old Saxon.

s. 286. The person in -t.—The forms art, wast, wert, shalt, wilt, or ar-t, was-t, wer-t, shal-t, wil-t, are remarkable. Here the second person singular ends, not in -st, but in t. The reason for this is to be sought in the Moeso-Gothic and the Icelandic.

In those languages the form of the person changes with the tense, and the second singular of the praeterite tense of one conjugation is, not -s, but -t; as Moeso-Gothic, svôr = I swore, svôrt = thou swarest, gráip = I griped, gráipt = thou gripedst; Icelandic, brannt = thou burnest, gaft = thou gavest. In the same languages ten verbs are conjugated like praeterites. Of these, in each language, skal is one.

Moeso-Gothic.

Singular. Dual. Plural.

1. Skal Skulu Skulum. 2. Skalt Skuluts Skuluth. 3. Skall Skuluts Skulun.

Icelandic.

Singular. Plural.

1. Skall Skulum. 2. Skalt Skuludh. 3. Skal Skulu.

s. 287. Thou spakest, thou brakest, thou sungest.[53]—

In these forms there is a slight though natural anomaly. They belong to the class of verbs which form their praeterite by changing the vowel of the present; as sing, sang, &c. Now, all words of this sort in Anglo-Saxon formed their second singular praeterite, not in -st, but in -e; as thú funde = thou foundest, thú sunge = thou sungest. The English termination is derived from the present. Observe that this applies only to the praeterites formed by changing the vowel. Thou loved'st is Anglo-Saxon as well as English, viz., thú lufodest.

s. 288. In the northern dialects of the Anglo-Saxon the -dh of plurals like lufiadh = we love becomes -s. In the Scottish this change was still more prevalent:

The Scottes come that to this day Havys and Scotland haldyn ay.—Wintoun, 11, 9, 73.

James I. of England ends nearly all his plurals in -s.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XX.

ON THE NUMBERS OF VERBS.

s. 289. As compared with the present plural forms, we love, ye love, they love, the Anglo-Saxons had the truly plural forms, we lufiadh, ge lufiadh, hi lufiadh. The Old English also had a true plural inflection we loven, ye loven, they loven. The present English wants both the form in -en, and the form in -adh. In other words, the Anglo-Saxon and the Old English have a plural personal characteristic, whilst the Modern English has nothing to correspond with it.

s. 290. In the forms luf-iadh, and lov-en, the change from singular to plural is made by adding a syllable; but there is no reason against the inflection running thus—I love, thou lovest, he loves; we lave, ye lave, they lave; in other words, there is no reason against the vowel of the root being changed, just as is the case with the form speak, spoke; fall, fell.

Now, in Anglo-Saxon, with a great number of verbs such a plural inflection not only actually takes place, but takes place most regularly. It takes place, however, in the past tense only. And this is the case in all the Gothic languages as well as in Anglo-Saxon. Amongst the rest, in—

Moeso-Gothic.

Skáin, I shone; skinum, we shone. Smáit, I smote; smitum, we smote. Káus, I chose; kusum, we chose. Láug, I lied; lugum, we lied. Gab, I gave; gêbum, we gave. At, I ete; étum, we ete. Stal, I stole; stélum, we stole. Qvam, I came; qyêmum, we came.

Anglo-Saxon.

Arn, I ran; urnon, we run. Ongan, I began; ongunnon, we begun. Span, I span; spunnon, we spun. Sang, I sang; sungon, we sung. Swang, I swang; swangon, we swung. Dranc, I drank; druncon, we drunk. Sanc, I sank; suncon, we sunk. Sprang, I sprang; sprungon, we sprung. Swam, I swam; swummon, we swum. Rang, I rang; rungon, we rung.

From these examples the reader has himself drawn his inference; viz. that words like

Began, begun. Ran, run. Span, spun. Sang, sung. Swang, swung. Sprang, sprung. Sank, sunk. Swam, swum. Rang, rung. Bat, bit. Smote, smit. Drank, drunk, &c.,

generally called double forms of the past tense, were originally different numbers of the same tense, the forms in a, as swam, being singular, and the forms in u, as swum, plural.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XXI.

ON MOODS.

s. 291. The Anglo-Saxon infinitive has already been considered.

Between the second plural imperative, and the second plural indicative, speak ye, and ye speak, there is no difference of form.

Between the second singular imperative speak, and the second singular indicative, speakest, there is a difference in form.

Still, as the imperative form speak is distinguished from the indicative form speakest by the negation of a character rather than by the possession of one, it cannot be said that there is in English any imperative mood.

s. 292. If he speak, as opposed to if he speaks, is characterized by a negative sign only, and consequently is no true example of a subjunctive. Be, as opposed to am, in the sentence if it be so, is a fresh word used in a limited sense, and consequently no true example of a subjunctive. It is a different word altogether, and is only the subjunctive of am, in the way puss is the vocative of cat.

The only true subjunctive inflection in the English language is that of were and wert, as opposed to the indicative forms was and wast.

Indicative. Subjunctive. Singular. Singular. Plural. 1. I was. If I were. If we were. 2. Thou wast. If thou wert. If ye were. 3. He was. If he were. If they were.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XXII.

ON TENSES IN GENERAL.

s. 293. The nature of tenses in general is best exhibited by reference to the Greek; since in that language they are more numerous, and more strongly marked than elsewhere.

I strike, I struck.—Of these words, the first implies an action taking place at the time of speaking, the second marks an action that has already taken place.

These two notions of present and of past time, being expressed by a change of form, are true tenses. If there were no change of form, there would be no change of tense. They are the only true tenses in our language. In I was beating, I have beaten, I had beaten, and I shall beat, a difference of time is expressed; but as it is expressed by a combination of words, and not by a change of form, no true tenses are constituted.

s. 294. In Greek the case is different. [Greek: Tupto] (typtô) = I beat; [Greek: etupton] (etypton) = I was beating; [Greek: tupso] (typsô) = I shall beat; [Greek: etupsa] (etypsa) = I beat; [Greek: tetupha] (tetyfa) = I have beaten; [Greek: etetuphein] (etetyfein) = I had beaten. In these words we have, of the same mood, the same voice, and the same conjugation, six different tenses; whereas, in English, there are but two. The forms [Greek: tetupha] and [Greek: etupsa] are so strongly marked, that we recognise them wheresoever they occur. The first is formed by a reduplication of the initial [tau], and, consequently, may be called the reduplicate form. As a tense it is called the perfect. In the form [Greek: etupsa] an [epsilon] is prefixed, and an [sigma] is added. In the allied language of Italy the [epsilon] disappears, whilst the [sigma] (s) remains. [Greek: Etupsa] is said to be an aorist tense. Scripsi is to scribo as [Greek: etupsa] is to [Greek: tupto].

s. 295. Now in the Latin language a confusion takes place between these two tenses. Both forms exist. They are used, however, indiscriminately. The aorist form has, besides its own, the sense of the perfect. The perfect has, besides its own, the sense of the aorist. In the following pair of quotations, vixi, the aorist form, is translated I have lived, while tetigit, the perfect form, is translated he touched.

Vixi, et quem dederat cursum Fortuna peregi; Et nunc magna mei sub terras ibis imago.—Aen. iv.

Ut primum alatis tetigit magalia plantis.—Aen. iv.

s. 296. When a difference of form has ceased to express a difference of meaning, it has become superfluous. This is the case with the two forms in question. One of them may be dispensed with; and the consequence is, that, although in the Latin language both the perfect and the aorist forms are found, they are, with few exceptions, never found in the same word. Wherever there is the perfect, the aorist is wanting, and vice versâ. The two ideas I have struck and I struck are merged into the notion of past time in general, and are expressed by one of two forms, sometimes by that of the Greek perfect, and sometimes by that of the Greek aorist. On account of this the grammarians have cut down the number of Latin tenses to five; forms like cucurri and vixi being dealt with as one and the same tense. The true view is, that in curro the aorist form is replaced by the perfect, and in vixi the perfect form is replaced by the aorist.

s. 297. In the present English there is no undoubted perfect or reduplicate form. The form moved corresponds in meaning not with [Greek: tetupha] and momordi, but with [Greek: etupsa] and vixi. Its sense is that of [Greek: etupsa], and not that of [Greek: tetupha]. The notion given by [Greek: tetupha] we express by the circumlocution I have beaten. We have no such form as bebeat or memove. In the Moeso-Gothic, however, there was a true reduplicate form; in other words, a perfect tense as well as an aorist. It is by the possession of this form that the verbs of the first six conjugations are characterized.

Moeso-Gothic. Moeso-Gothic. English. English.

1st. Faltha, I fold Fáifalth, I have folded, or I folded. Halda, I feed Háihald, I have fed, or I fed. Haha, I hang Háihah, I have hanged, or I hanged. 2nd. Háita, I call Háiháit, I have called, or I called. Láika, I play Láiláik, I have played, or I played. 3rd. Hláupa, I run Hláiláup I have run, or I ran. 4th. Slêpa, I sleep Sáizlêp, I have slept, or I slept. 5th. Láia, I laugh Láilô, I have laughed, or I laught. Sáija, I sow Sáisô, I have sown, or I sowed. 6th. Grêta, I weep Gáigrôt, I have wept, or I wept. Téka, I touch Táitôk, I have touched, or I touched.

In Moeso-Gothic, as in Latin, the perfect forms have, besides their own, an aorist sense, and vice versâ.

In Moeso-Gothic, as in Latin, few (if any) words are found in both forms.

In Moeso-Gothic, as in Latin, the two forms are dealt with as a single tense; láilô being called the praeterite of láia, and svôr the praeterite of svara. The true view, however, is that in Moeso-Gothic, as in Latin, there are two past tenses, each having a certain latitude of meaning, and each, in certain words, replacing the other.

The reduplicate form, in other words, the perfect tense, is current in none of the Gothic languages except the Moeso-Gothic. A trace of it is said to be found in the Anglo-Saxon of the seventh century in the word heht, which is considered to be hê-ht, the Moeso-Gothic háiháit, vocavi. Did from do is also considered to be a reduplicate form.

s. 298. In the English language the tense corresponding with the Greek aorist and the Latin forms like vixi, is formed after two modes; 1, as in fell, sang, and took, from fall, sing, and take, by changing the vowel of the present: 2, as in moved and wept, from move and weep, by the addition of -d or -t; the -d or -t not being found in the original word, but being a fresh element added to it. In forms, on the contrary, like sang and fell, no addition being made, no new element appears. The vowel, indeed, is changed, but nothing is added. Verbs, then, of the first sort, may be said to form their praeterites out of themselves; whilst verbs of the second sort require something from without. To speak in a metaphor, words like sang and fell are comparatively independent. Be this as it may, the German grammarians call the tenses formed by a change of vowel the strong tenses, the strong verbs, the strong conjugation, or the strong order; and those formed by the addition of d or t, the weak tenses, the weak verbs, the weak conjugation, or the weak order. Bound, spoke, gave, lay, &c., are strong; moved, favoured, instructed, &c., are weak.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XXIII.

THE STRONG TENSES.

s. 299. The strong praeterites are formed from the present by changing the vowel, as sing, sang; speak, spoke.

In Anglo-Saxon, several praeterites change, in their plural, the vowel of their singular; as

Ic sang, I sang. We sungon, we sung. Thu sunge, thou sungest. Ge sungon, ye sung. He sang, he sang. Hi sungon, they sung.

The bearing of this fact upon the praeterites has already been indicated. In a great number of words we have a double form, as ran and run, sang and sung, drank and drunk, &c. One of these forms is derived from the singular, and the other from the plural.

In cases where but one form is preserved, that form is not necessarily the singular; indeed, it is often the plural;—e.g., Ic fand, I found, we fundon, we found, are the Anglo-Saxon forms. Now the present word found comes, not from the singular fand, but from the plural fundon; although in the Lowland Scotch dialect and in the old writers, the singular form occurs;

Donald Caird finds orra things, Where Allan Gregor fand the tings.—SCOTT.

s. 300. The verbs wherein the double form of the present praeterite is thus explained, fall into two classes.

1. In the first class, the Anglo-Saxon forms were á in the singular, and i in the plural; as—

Sing. Plur. Sceán Scinon (we shone). Arás Arison (we arose). Smát Smiton (we smote).

This accounts for—

Present. Praet. from Sing. form. Praet. from Plur. form.

Rise Rose [54]Ris. Smite Smote Smit. Ride Rode [54]Rid. Stride Strode Strid. Slide [54]Slode Slid. Chide [54]Chode Chid. Drive Drove [54]Driv. Thrive Throve Thriv. Write Wrote Writ. Slit [54]Slat Slit. Bite [54]Bat Bit.

2. In the second class, the Anglo-Saxon forms were a in the singular, and u in the plural, as—

Sing. Plural. Band Bundon (we bound). Fand Fundon (we found). Grand Grundon (we ground). Wand Wundon (we wound).

This accounts for—

Present. Praet from Sing. form. Praet. from Pl. form. Swim Swam Swum. Begin Began Begun. Spin [55]Span Spun. Win [55]Wan [56]Won. Sing Sang Sung. Swing [55]Swang Swung. Spring Sprang Sprung. Sting [55]Stang Stung. Ring Rang Rung. Wring [55]Wrang Wrung. Fling Flang Flung. [55]Hing Hang Hung. String [55]Strang Strung. Sink Sank Sunk. Drink Drank Drunk. Shrink Shrank Shrunk. Stink [55]Stank Stunk. Melt [55]Molt — Help [55]Holp — Delve [55]Dolv — Stick [55]Stack Stuck. Run Ran Run. Burst Brast Burst. Bind Band Bound. Find [55]Fand Found.

s. 301. The following double praeterites are differently explained. The primary one often (but not always) is from the Anglo-Saxon participle, the secondary from the Anglo-Saxon praeterite.

Present. Primary Praeterite. Secondary Praeterite. Cleave Clove [55]Clave. Steal Stole [55]Stale. Speak Spoke Spake. Swear Swore Sware. Bear Bore Bare. Tear Tore [55]Tare. Wear Wore [55]Ware. Break Broke Brake. Get Got [55]Gat. Tread Trod Trad. Bid Bade Bid. Eat Ate Ete.

s. 302. The following verbs have only a single form for the praeterite,—

Present. Praeterite. Present. Praeterite. Fall Fell. Forsake Forsook. Befall Befell. Eat Ate. Hold Held. Give Gave. Draw Drew. Wake Woke. Slay Slew. Grave Grove. Fly Flew. Shape Shope. Blow Blew. Strike Struck. Crow Crew. Shine Shone. Know Knew. Abide Abode. Grow Grew. Strive Strove. Throw Threw. Climb Clomb. Let Let. Hide Hid. Beat Beat. Dig Dug. Come Came. Cling Clung. Heave Hove. Swell Swoll. Weave Wove. Grind Ground. Freeze Froze. Wind Wound. Shear Shore. Choose Chose. Quoth. Stand Stood. Seethe Sod. Lie Lay. Shake Shook. See Saw. Take Took.

s. 303. An arrangement of the preceding verbs into classes, according to the change of vowel, is by no means difficult, even in the present stage of the English language. In the Anglo-Saxon, it was easier still. It is also easier in the provincial dialects, than in the literary English. Thus, when

Break is pronounced Breek, Bear — Beer, Tear — Teer, Swear — Sweer, Wear — Weer,

as they actually are by many speakers, they come in the same class with,—

Speak pronounced Speek, Cleave — Cleeve,

and form their praeterite by means of a similar change, i.e., by changing the sound of the ee in feet (spelt ea) into that of the a in fate; viewed thus, the irregularity is less than it appears to be at first sight.

Again, tread is pronounced tredd, but many provincial speakers say treed, and so said the Anglo-Saxons, whose form was ic trede = I tread. Their praeterite was traed. This again subtracts from the apparent irregularity.

Instances of this kind may be multiplied; the whole question, however, of the conjugation of the strong verbs is best considered after the perusal of the next chapter.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XXIV.

THE WEAK TENSES.

s. 304. The praeterite tense of the weak verbs is formed by the addition of -d or -t.

If necessary, the syllable -ed is substituted for -d.

The current statement that the syllable -ed, rather than the letter -d is the sign of the praeterite tense, is true only in regard to the written language. In stabbed, moved, bragged, whizzed, judged, filled, slurred, slammed, shunned, barred, strewed, the e is a point of spelling only. In language, except in declamation, there is no second vowel sound. The -d comes in immediate contact with the final letter of the original word, and the number of syllables remains the same as it was before. We say stabd, môved, bragd, &c.

s. 305. When, however, the original word ends in -d or -t, as slight or brand, then, and then only is there the real addition of the syllable -ed; as in slighted, branded.

This is necessary, since the combinations slightt and brandd are unpronounceable.

Whether the addition be -d or -t depends upon the flatness or sharpness of the preceding letter.

After b, v, th (as in clothe), g, or z, the addition is -d. This is a matter of necessity. We say stabd, môvd, clôthd, braggd, whizzd, because stabt, môvt, clotht, braggt, whizzt, are unpronounceable.

After l, m, n, r, w, y, or a vowel, the addition is also -d. This is the habit of the English language. Filt, slurt, strayt, &c., are as pronounceable as filld, slurrd, strayd, &c. It is the habit, however, of the English language to prefer the latter forms.

All this, as the reader has probably observed, is merely the reasoning concerning the s, in words like father's, &c., applied to another letter and to another part of speech.

s. 306. The verbs of the weak conjugation fall into three classes.

I. In the first there is the simple addition of -d, -t, or -ed.

Serve, served. Dip, dipped (dipt). Cry, cried. Slip, slipped (slipt). Betray, betrayed. Step, stepped (stept). Expell, expelled. Look, looked (lookt). Accuse, accused. Pluck, plucked (pluckt). Instruct, instructed. Toss, tossed (tost). Invite, invited. Push, pushed (pusht). Waste, wasted. Confess, confessed (confest).

To this class belong the greater part of the weak verbs and all verbs of foreign origin.

s. 307. II. In the second class, besides the addition of -t or -d, the vowel is shortened,

Present. Praeterite.

Creep Crept. Keep Kept. Sleep Slept. Sweep Swept. Weep Wept. Lose Lost. Mean [57]Meant.

Here the final consonant is -t.

Present Praeterite

Flee Fled. Hear [58]Heard. Shoe Shod. Say [59]Said.

Here the final consonant is -d.

s. 308. III. In the second class the vowel of the present tense was shortened in the praeterite. In the third class it is changed.

Tell, told. Will, would. Sell, sold. Shall, should.

To this class belong the remarkable praeterites of the verbs seek, beseech, catch, teach, bring, think, and buy, viz., sought, besought, caught, taught, brought, thought, and bought. In all these, the final consonant is either g or k, or else a sound allied to those mutes. When the tendency of these sounds to become h and y, as well as to undergo farther changes, is remembered, the forms in point cease to seem anomalous. In wrought, from work, there is a transposition. In laid and said the present forms make a show of regularity which they have not. The true original forms should be legde and saegde, the infinitives being lecgan, secgan. In these words the i represents the semivowel y, into which the original g was changed. The Anglo-Saxon forms of the other words are as follows:—

Bycan, bóhte. Sêcan, sóhte. Bringan, bróhte. Thencan, thóhte. Wyrcan, wórhte.

s. 309. Out of the three classes into which the weak verbs in Anglo-Saxon are divided, only one takes a vowel before the d or t. The other two add the syllables -te or -de, to the last letter of the original word. The vowel that, in one out of the three Anglo-Saxon classes, precedes d is o. Thus we have lufian, lufode; clypian, clypode. In the other two classes the forms are respectively baernan, baernde; and tellan, tealde, no vowel being found. The participle, however, as stated above, ended, not in -de or -te, but in -d or -t; and in two out of the three classes it was preceded by a vowel; the vowel being e,—gelufod, baerned, geteald. Now in those conjugations where no vowel preceded the d of the praeterite, and where the original word ended in -d or -t, a difficulty, which has already been indicated, arose. To add the sign of the praeterite to a word like eard-ian (to dwell) was an easy matter, inasmuch as eardian was a word belonging to the first class, and in the first class the praeterite was formed in -ode. Here the vowel o kept the two d's from coming in contact. With words, however, like métan and sendan, this was not the case. Here no vowel intervened; so that the natural praeterite forms were met-te, send-de, combinations wherein one of the letters ran every chance of being dropped in the pronunciation. Hence, with the exception of the verbs in the first class, words ending in -d or -t in the root admitted no additional d or t in the praeterite. This difficulty, existing in the present English as it existed in the Anglo-Saxon, modifies the praeterites of most words ending in -t or -d.

s. 310. In several words there is the actual addition of the syllable -ed; in other words d is separated from the last letter of the original word by the addition of a vowel; as ended, instructed, &c.

s. 311. In several words the final -d is changed into -t, as bend, bent; rend, rent; send, sent; gild, gilt; build, built; spend, spent, &c.

s. 312. In several words the vowel of the root is changed; as feed, fed; bleed, bled; breed, bred; meet, met; speed, sped; rēad, rĕad, &c. Words of this last-named class cause occasional difficulty to the grammarian. No addition is made to the root, and, in this circumstance, they agree with the strong verbs. Moreover, there is a change of the vowel. In this circumstance also they agree with the strong verbs. Hence with forms like fed and led we are in doubt as to the conjugation. This doubt we have three means of settling, as may be shown by the word beat.

a. By the form of the participle.—The -en in beaten shows that the word beat is strong.

b. By the nature of the vowel.—The weak form of to beat would be bet, or beăt, after the analogy of feed and read. By some persons the word is pronounced bet, and with those who do so the word is weak.

c. By a knowledge of the older forms.—The Anglo-Saxon form is beáte, beot. There is no such a weak form as beáte, baette. The praeterite of sendan is sende weak. There is in Anglo-Saxon no such form as sand, strong.

In all this we see a series of expedients for distinguishing the praeterite form from the present, when the root ends with the same sound with which the affix begins.

The change from a long vowel to a short one, as in feed, fed, &c., can only take place where there is a long vowel to be changed.

Where the vowels are short, and, at the same time, the word ends in -d, the -d of the present may become -t in the praeterite. Such is the case with bend, bent.

When there is no long vowel to shorten, and no -d to change into -t, the two tenses, of necessity, remain alike; such is the case with cut, cost, &c.

s. 313. The following verbs form their praeterite in -t:—

Present. Praeterite.

Leave [60]Left not [61]Leaved. Cleave Cleft — Cleaved. Bereave Bereft — Bereaved. Deal [62]Dealt — Dealed. Feel Felt — Feeled. Dream [60]Dremt — Dreamed. Learn [60]Lernt — Learned.

s. 314. Certain so-called irregularities may now be noticed.—Made, had.—In these words there is nothing remarkable but the ejection of a consonant. The Anglo-Saxon forms are macode and haefde, respectively. The words, however, in regard to the amount of change, are not upon a par. The f in haefde was probably sounded as v. Now v is a letter excessively liable to be ejected, which k is not. K, before it is ejected, is generally changed into either g or y.

Would, should, could.—It must not be imagined that could is in the same predicament with these words. In will and shall the -l is part of the original word. This is not the case with can. For the form could, see s. 331.

s. 315. Aught.—In Anglo-Saxon áhte, the praeterite of the present form áh, plural ágon.—As late as the time of Elizabeth we find owe used for own. The present form own seems to have arisen from the plural ágon. Aught is the praeterite of the Anglo-Saxon áh; owed of the English owe = debeo; owned of the English own = possideo. The word own, in the expression to own to a thing, has a totally different origin. It comes from the Anglo-Saxon an (plural, unnon) = I give, or grant = concedo.

s. 316. Durst.—The verb dare is both transitive and intransitive. We can say either I dare do such a thing, or I dare (challenge) such a man to do it. This, in the present tense, is unequivocally correct. In the past the double power of the word dare is ambiguous; still it is, to my mind at least, allowable. We can certainly say I dared him to accept my challenge; and we can, perhaps, say I dared venture on the expedition. In this last sentence, however, durst is the preferable expression.

Now, although dare is both transitive and intransitive, durst is only intransitive. It never agrees with the Latin word provoco; only with the Latin word audeo. Moreover, the word durst has both a present and a past sense. The difficulty which it presents consists in the presence of the -st, letters characteristic of the second person singular, but here found in all the persons alike; as I durst, they durst, &c.

This has still to be satisfactorily accounted for.

Must.—A form common to all persons, numbers, and tenses. That neither the -s nor the -t are part of the original root, is indicated by the Scandinavian form maae (Danish), pronounced moh; praeterite maatt.

This form has still to be satisfactorily accounted for.

Wist.—In its present form a regular praeterite from wiss = know. The difficulties of this word arise from the parallel forms wit (as in to wit), and wot = knew. The following are the forms of this peculiar word:—

In Moeso-Gothic, 1 sing. pres. ind. váit; 2. do., váist; 1 pl. vitum; praeterite 1 s. vissa; 2 vissêss; 1 pl. vissêdum. From the form váist we see that the second singular is formed after the manner of must; that is, váist stands instead of váit-t. From the form vissêdum we see that the praeterite is not strong, but weak; therefore that vissa is euphonic for vista.

In Anglo-Saxon.—Wât, wást, witon, wiste, and wisse, wiston.—Hence the double forms, wiste, and wisse, verify the statement concerning the Moeso-Gothic vissa.

In Icelandic.—Veit, veizt, vitum, vissi. Danish ved, vide, vidste. Observe the form vidste; since, in it, the d of the root (in spelling, at least) is preserved. The t of the Anglo-Saxon wiste is the t, not of the root, but of the inflection.

In respect to the four forms in question, viz., wit, wot, wiss, wisst, the first seems to be the root; the second a strong praeterite regularly formed, but used (like [Greek: oida] in Greek) with a present sense; the third a weak praeterite, of which the -t has been ejected by a euphonic process, used also with a present sense; the fourth is a second singular from wiss after the manner of wert from were, a second singular from wit after the manner of must, a secondary praeterite from wiss, or finally, the form wisse, anterior to the operation of the euphonic process that ejected the -t.

s. 317. In the phrase this will do = this will answer the purpose, the word do is wholly different from the word do, meaning to act. In the first case it is equivalent to the Latin valere; in the second to the Latin facere. Of the first the Anglo-Saxon inflection is deáh, dugon, dohte, dohtest, &c. Of the second it is dó, dodh, dyde, &c. I doubt whether the praeterite did, as equivalent to valebat = was good for, is correct. In the phrase it did for him = it finished him, either meaning may be allowed.

In the present Danish they write duger, but say duer: as duger et noget? = Is it worth anything? pronounced dooer deh note? This accounts for the ejection of the g. The Anglo-Saxon form deáh does the same.

s. 318. Mind—mind and do so and so.—In this sentence the word mind is wholly different from the noun mind. The Anglo-Saxon forms are geman, gemanst, gemunon, without the -d; this letter occurring only in the praeterite tense (gemunde, gemundon), of which it is the sign. Mind is, then, a praeterite form with a present sense; whilst minded (as in he minded his business) is an instance of excess of inflection; in other words, it is a praeterite formed from a praeterite.

s. 319. Yode.—The obsolete praeterite of go, now replaced by went, the praeterite of wend. Regular, except that the initial g has become y.

s. 320. Did.—See s. 317.

Did, from do = facio, is a strong verb. This we infer from the form of its participle done.

If so the final -d is not the same as the -d in moved. What is it? There are good grounds for believing that in the word did we have a single instance of the old reduplicate praeterite. If so, it is the latter d which is radical, and the former which is inflectional.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XXV.

ON CONJUGATION.

s. 321. Attention is directed to the following list of verbs. In the present English they all form the praeterite in -d or -t; in Anglo-Saxon, they all formed it by a change of the vowel. In other words they are weak verbs that were once strong.

Praeterites.

English. Anglo-Saxon.

Present. Praeterite. Present. Praeterite. Wreak Wreaked. Wrece Wraec. Fret Fretted. Frete Fraet. Mete Meted. Mete Maet. Shear Sheared. Scere Scear. Braid Braided. Brede Braed. Knead Kneaded. Cnede Cnaed. Dread Dreaded. Draede Dred. Sleep Slept. Slápe Slep. Fold Folded. Fealde Feold. Wield Wielded. Wealde Weold. Wax Waxed. Weaxe Weox. Leap Leapt. Hleápe Hleop. Sweep Swept. Swápe Sweop. Weep Wept. Wepe Weop. Sow Sowed. Sáwe Seow. Bake Baked. Bace Bók. Gnaw Gnawed. Gnage Gnóh. Laugh Laughed. Hlihhe Hlóh. Wade Waded. Wade Wód. Lade Laded. Hlade Hlód. Grave Graved. Grafe Gróf. Shave Shaved. Scafe Scóf. Step Stepped. Steppe Stóp. Wash Washed. Wacse Wócs. Bellow Bellowed. Belge Bealh. Swallow Swallowed. Swelge Swealh. Mourn Mourned. Murne Mearn. Spurn Spurned. Spurne Spearn. Carve Carved. Ceorfe Cearf. Starve Starved. Steorfe Staerf. Thresh Threshed. Thersce Thaersc. Hew Hewed. Heawe Heow. Flow Flowed. Flówe Fleow. Row Rowed. Rówe Reow. Creep Crept. Creópe Creáp. Dive Dived. Deófe Deáf. Shove Shoved. Scéofe Sceáf. Chew Chewed. Ceówe Ceáw. Brew Brewed. Breówe Breáw. Lock Locked. Lûce Leác. Suck Sucked. Sûce Seác. Reek Reeked. Reóce Reác. Smoke Smoked. Smeóce Smeác. Bow Bowed. Beóge Beáh. Lie Lied. Leóge Leáh. Gripe Griped. Grípe Gráp. Span Spanned. Spanne Spén. Eke Eked. Eáce Eóc. Fare Fared. Fare Fôr.

s. 322. Respecting the strong verb, the following general statements may be made:

1. Many strong verbs become weak; whilst no weak verb ever becomes strong.

2. All the strong verbs are of Saxon origin. None are classical.

3. The greater number of them are strong throughout the Gothic tongues.

4. No new word is ever, upon its importation, inflected according to the strong conjugation. It is always weak. As early as A.D. 1085, the French word adouber = to dub, was introduced into English. Its praeterite was dubbade.