5. All derived words are inflected weak. The intransitive forms drink and lie, are strong; the transitive forms drench and lay, are weak.

This shows that the division of verbs into weak and strong is a truly natural one.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XXVI.

DEFECTIVENESS AND IRREGULARITY.

s. 323. The distinction between irregularity and defectiveness has been foreshadowed. It is now more urgently insisted on.

The words that have hitherto served as illustrations are the personal pronouns I or me, the adjectives good, better, and best.

The view of these words was as follows; viz., that none of them were irregular, but that they were all defective. Me wanted the nominative, I the oblique cases. Good was without a comparative, better and best had no positive degree.

Now me and better may be said to make good the defectiveness of I and good; and I and good may be said to replace the forms wanting in me and better. This gives us the principle of compensation. To introduce a new term, I and me, good and better, may be said to be complementary to each other.

What applies to nouns applies to verbs also. Go and went are not irregularities. Go is defective in the past tense. Went is without a present. The two words, however, compensate their mutual deficiencies, and are complementary to each other.

The distinction between defectiveness and irregularity, is the first instrument of criticism for coming to true views concerning the proportion of the regular and irregular verbs.

s. 324. The second instrument of criticism in determining the irregular verbs, is the meaning that we attach to the term.

It is very evident that it is in the power of the grammarian to raise the number of etymological irregularities to any amount, by narrowing the definition of the word irregular; in other words, by framing an exclusive rule. The current rule of the common grammarians is that the praeterite is formed by the addition of -t, or -d, or -ed; a position sufficiently exclusive; since it proscribes not only the whole class of strong verbs, but also words like bent and sent, where -t exists, but where it does not exist as an addition. The regular forms, it may be said, should be bended and sended.

Exclusive, however, as the rule in question is, it is plain that it might be made more so. The regular forms might, by the fiat of a rule, be restricted to those in -d. In this case words like wept and burnt would be added to the already numerous list of irregulars.

Finally, a further limitation might be made, by laying down as a rule that no word was regular, unless it ended in -ed.

s. 325. Thus much concerning the modes of making rules exclusive, and, consequently, of raising the amount of irregularities. This is the last art that the philosophic grammarian is ambitious of acquiring. True etymology reduces irregularity; and that by making the rules of grammar, not exclusive, but general. The quantum of irregularity is in the inverse proportion to the generality of our rules. In language itself there is no irregularity. The word itself is only another name for our ignorance of the processes that change words; and, as irregularity is in the direct proportion to the exclusiveness of our rules, the exclusiveness of our rules is in the direct proportion to our ignorance of etymological processes.

s. 326. The explanation of some fresh terms will lead us towards the definition of the word irregular.

Vital and obsolete processes.—The word moved is formed from move, by the addition of -d. The addition of -d is the process by which the present form is rendered praeterite. The word fell is formed from fall, by changing a into e. The change of vowel is the process by which the present form is rendered praeterite. Of the two processes the result is the same. In what respect do they differ?

For the sake of illustration, let a new word be introduced into the language. Let a praeterite tense of it be formed. This praeterite would be formed, not by changing the vowel, but by adding -d. No new verb ever takes a strong praeterite. The like takes place with nouns. No new substantive would form its plural, like oxen or geese, by adding -en, or by changing the vowel. It would rather, like fathers and horses, add the lene sibilant.

Now, the processes that change fall, ox and goose into fell, oxen, and geese, inasmuch as they cease to operate on the language in its present stage, are obsolete processes; whilst those that change move into moved, and horse into horses, operating on the language in its present stage, are vital processes.

A definition of the word irregular might be so framed as to include all words whose forms could not be accounted for by the vital processes. Such a definition would make all the strong verbs irregular.

The very fact of so natural a class as that of the strong verbs being reduced to the condition of irregulars, invalidates such a definition as this.

s. 327. Processes of necessity as opposed to processes of habit.—The combinations -pd, -fd, -kd, -sd, and some others, are unpronounceable. Hence words like step, quaff, back, kiss, &c., take after them the sound of -t; stept, quafft, &c., being their praeterites, instead of stepd, quaffd. Here the change from -d to -t is a matter of necessity. It is not so with words like weep, and wept, &c. Here the change of vowel is not necessary. Weept might have been said if the habit of the language had permitted.

A definition of the word irregular might be so framed as to include all words whose natural form was modified by any euphonic process whatever. In this case stept (modified by a process of necessity), and wept (modified by a process of habit), would be equally irregular.

A less limited definition might account words regular as long as the process by which they are deflected from their natural form was a process of necessity. Those, however, which were modified by a process of habit it would class with the irregulars.

Definitions thus limited arise from ignorance of euphonic processes, or rather from an ignorance of the generality of their operation.

s. 328. Ordinary processes as opposed to extraordinary processes.—The whole scheme of language is analogical. A new word introduced into a language takes the forms of its cases or tenses, &c., from the forms of the cases or tenses, &c., of the old words. The analogy is extended. Now few forms (if any) are so unique as not to have some others corresponding with them; and few processes of change are so unique as not to affect more words than one. The forms wept, and slept, correspond with each other. They are brought about by the same process: viz., by the shortening of the vowel in weep and sleep. The analogy of weep is extended to sleep, and vice versâ. Changing our expression, a common influence affects both words. The alteration itself is the leading fact. The extent of its influence is an instrument of classification. When processes affect a considerable number of words, they may be called ordinary processes; as opposed to extraordinary processes, which affect one or few words.

When a word stands by itself, with no other corresponding to it, we confess our ignorance, and say that it is affected by an extraordinary process, by a process peculiar to itself, or by a process to which we know nothing similar.

A definition of the word irregular might be so framed as to include all words affected by extraordinary processes; the rest being considered regular.

s. 329. Positive processes as opposed to ambiguous processes.—The words wept and slept are similarly affected. Each is changed from weep and sleep respectively; and we know that the process which affects the one is the process that affects the other also. Here there is a positive process.

Reference is now made to words of a different sort. The nature of the word worse has been explained in the Chapter on the Comparative Degree. There the form is accounted for in two ways, of which only one can be the true one. Of the two processes, each might equally have brought about the present form. Which of the two it was, we are unable to say. Here the process is ambiguous.

A definition of the word irregular might be so framed as to include all words affected by ambiguous processes.

s. 330. Normal processes as opposed to processes of confusion.—Let a certain word come under class A. Let all words under class A be similarly affected. Let a given word come under class A. This word will be affected even as the rest of class A is affected. The process affecting, and the change resulting, will be normal, regular, or analogical.

Let, however, a word, instead of really coming under class A, only appear to do so. Let it be dealt with accordingly. The analogy then is a false one. The principle of imitation is a wrong one. The process affecting is a process of confusion.

Examples of this (a few amongst many) are words like songstress, theirs, minded, where the words songstr-, their-, mind-, are dealt with as roots, which they are not.

Ambiguous processes, extraordinary processes, processes of confusion—each, or all of these, are legitimate reasons for calling words irregular. The practice of etymologists will determine what definition is most convenient.

With extraordinary processes we know nothing about the word. With ambiguous processes we are unable to make a choice. With processes of confusion we see the analogy, but, at the same time, see that it is a false one.

s. 331. Could.—With all persons who pronounce the l this word is truly irregular. The Anglo-Saxon form is cudhe. The l is inserted by a process of confusion.

Can, cunne, canst, cunnon, cunnan, cudhe, cudhon, cudh—such are the remaining forms in Anglo-Saxon. None of them account for the l. The presence of the l makes the word could irregular. No reference to the allied languages accounts for it.

Notwithstanding this, the presence of the l is accounted for. In would and should the l has a proper place. It is part of the original words, will and shall. A false analogy looked upon could in the same light. Hence a true irregularity; provided that the L be pronounced.

The L, however, is pronounced by few, and that only in pursuance with the spelling. This reduces the word could to an irregularity, not of language, but only of orthography.

That the mere ejection of the -n in can, and that the mere lengthening of the vowel, are not irregularities, we learn from a knowledge of the processes that convert the Greek [Greek: odontos] (odontos) into [Greek: odous] (odows).

s. 332. The verb quoth is truly defective. It is found in only one tense, one number, and one person. It is the third person singular of the praeterite tense. It has the further peculiarity of preceding its pronoun. Instead of saying he quoth, we say quoth he. In Anglo-Saxon, however, it was not defective. It was found in the other tenses, in the other number, and in other moods. Ic cwedhe, thú cwyst, he cwydh; ic cwaedh, thú cwaedhe, he cwaedh, we cwaedon, ge cwaedon, hi cwaedon; imperative, cwedh; participle, gecweden. In the Scandinavian it is current in all its forms. There, however, it means, not to speak but to sing. As far as its conjugation goes, it is strong. As far as its class goes, it follows the form of speak, spoke. Like speak, its Anglo-Saxon form is in ae, as cwaedh. Like one of the forms of speak, its English form is in o, as quoth, spoke.

s. 333. The principle that gives us the truest views of the structure of language is that which considers no word irregular unless it be affected by either an ambiguous process, or by a process of confusion. The words affected by extraordinary processes form a provisional class, which a future increase of our etymological knowledge may show to be regular. Worse and could are the fairest specimens of our irregulars. Yet even could is only an irregularity in the written language. The printer makes it, and the printer can take it away. Hence the class, instead of filling pages, is exceedingly limited.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XXVII.

THE IMPERSONAL VERBS.

s. 334. In me-seems, and me-thinks, the me is dative rather than accusative, and = mihi and [Greek: moi] rather than me and [Greek: me].

s. 335. In me-listeth, the me is accusative rather than dative, and = me and [Greek: me] rather than mihi and [Greek: moi].

For the explanation of this difference see Syntax, Chapter XXI.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XXVIII.

THE VERB SUBSTANTIVE.

s. 336. The verb substantive is generally dealt with as an irregular verb. This is inaccurate. The true notion is that the idea of being or existing is expressed by four different verbs, each of which is defective in some of its parts. The parts, however, that are wanting in one verb, are made up by the inflections of one of the others. There is, for example, no praeterite of the verb am, and no present of the verb was. The absence, however, of the present form of was is made up by the word am, and the absence of the praeterite form of am is made up by the word was.

s. 337. Was is defective, except in the praeterite tense, where it is found both in the indicative and conjunctive.

Indicative. Conjunctive. Sing. Plur. Sing. Plur. 1. Was Were. 1. Were Were. 2. Wast Were. 2. Wert Were. 3. Was Were. 3. Were Were.

In the older stages of the Gothic languages the word had both a full conjugation and a regular one. In Anglo-Saxon it had an infinitive, a participle present, and a participle past. In Moeso-Gothic it was inflected throughout with -s; as visa, vas, vêsum, visans. In that language it has the power of the Latin maneo = to remain. The r first appears in the Old High German, wisu, was, wârumés, wesaner. In Norse the s entirely disappears, and the word is inflected with r throughout; vera, var, vorum, &c.

s. 338. Be is inflected in Anglo-Saxon throughout the present tense, both indicative and subjunctive. It is found also as an infinitive, beón; as a gerund, to beonne; and as a participle, beonde; in the present English its inflection is as follows:

Present. Conjunctive. Imperative. Sing. Plur. Sing. Plur. Be Be. Be Be Be Be Infin. To be. Pres. P. Being. Past. Part. Been.

s. 339. The line in Milton beginning If thou beest he—(P. L. b. ii.), leads to the notion that the antiquated form beest is not indicative, but conjunctive. Such, however, is not the case: byst in Anglo-Saxon is indicative, the conjunctive form being beó. And every thing that pretty bin (Cymbeline).—Here the word bin is the conjunctive plural, in Anglo-Saxon beón; so that the words every thing are to be considered equivalent to the plural form all things. The phrase in Latin would stand thus, quotquot pulchra sint; in Greek, thus, [Greek: ha an kala ei]. The indicative plural is, in Anglo-Saxon, not beón, but beódh and beó.

s. 340. In the "Deutsche Grammatik" it is stated that the Anglo-Saxon forms beô, bist, bidh, beodh, or beó, have not a present but a future sense; that whilst am means I am, beó means I shall be; and that in the older languages it is only where the form am is not found that be has the power of a present form. The same root occurs in the Slavonic and Lithuanic tongues with the same power; as, esmi = I am; búsu = I shall be, Lithuanic. Esmu = I am; buhshu = I shall be, Livonic.—Jesm = I am; budu = I shall be, Slavonic.—Gsem = I am; budu = I shall be, Bohemian. This, however, proves, not that there is in Anglo-Saxon a future tense, but that the word beó has a future sense. There is no fresh tense where there is no fresh form.

The following is a specimen of the future power of beón in Anglo-Saxon:—"Hi ne beódh na cílde, sodhlice, on domesdaege, ac beódh swa micele menn swa swa hi migton beón gif hi full weoxon on gewunlicre ylde."—Aelfric's Homilies. "They will not be children, forsooth, on Domesday, but will be as much (so muckle) men as they might be if they were full grown (waxen) in customary age."

s. 341. Now, if we consider the word beón like the word weordhan (see s. 343) to mean not so much to be as to become, we get an element of the idea of futurity. Things which are becoming anything have yet something further to either do or suffer. Again, from the idea of futurity we get the idea of contingency, and this explains the subjunctive power of be. In English we often say may for shall, and the same was done in Anglo-Saxon.

s. 342. Am.—Of this form it should be stated that the letter -m is no part of the original word. It is the sign of the first person, just as it is in Greek, and several other languages.

It should also be stated, that although the fact be obscured, and although the changes be insufficiently accounted for, the forms am, art, are, and is, are not, like am and was, parts of different words, but forms of one and the same word; in other terms, that, although between am and be there is no etymological connexion, there is one between am and is. This we collect from the comparison of the Indo-European languages.

1. 2. 3. Sanskrit Asmi Asi Asti. Zend Ahmi Asi Ashti. Greek [Greek: Eimi] [Greek: Eis] [Greek: Esti]. Latin Sum Es Est. Lithuanic Esmi Essi Esti. Old Slavonic Yesmy Yesi Yesty. Moeso-Gothic Im Is Ist. Old Saxon — [63]Is Ist. Anglo-Saxon Eom Eart Is. Icelandic Em Ert Er. English Am Art Is.

s. 343. Worth.—In the following lines of Scott, the word worth = is, and is a fragment of the regular Anglo-Saxon verb weordhan = to be, or to become; German werden.

Woe worth the chase, woe worth the day, That cost thy life, my gallant grey.—Lady of the Lake.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XXIX.

THE PRESENT PARTICIPLE.

s. 344. The present participle, called also the active participle and the participle in -ing, is formed from the original word by adding -ing; as, move, moving. In the older languages the termination was more marked, being -nd. Like the Latin participle in -ns, it was originally declined. The Moeso-Gothic and Old High German forms are habands and hapêntér = having, respectively. The -s in the one language, and the -êr in the other, are the signs of the case and gender. In the Old Saxon and Anglo-Saxon the forms are -and and -ande; as bindand, bindande = binding. In all the Norse languages, ancient and modern, the -d is preserved. So it is in the Old Lowland Scotch, and in many of the modern provincial dialects of England, where strikand, goand, is said for striking, going. In Staffordshire, where the -ing is pronounced -ingg, there is a fuller sound than that of the current English. In Old English the form in -nd is predominant, in Middle English the use fluctuates, and in New English the termination -ing is universal. In the Scotch of the modern writers we find the form -in.

The rising sun o'er Galston muirs Wi' glorious light was glintin'; The hares were hirplin' down the furs, The lav'rocks they were chantin'.—BURNS' Holy Fair.

s. 345. It has often been remarked that the participle is used in many languages as a substantive. This is true in Greek,

[Greek: Ho prasson] = the actor, when a male. [Greek: He prassousa] = the actor, when a female. [Greek: To prattou] = the active principle of a thing.

But it is also stated, that, in the English language, the participle is used as a substantive in a greater degree than elsewhere, and that it is used in several cases and in both numbers, e.g.,

Rising early is healthy, There is health in rising early. This is the advantage of rising early. The risings in the North, &c.

Some acute remarks of Mr. R. Taylor, in the Introduction to his edition of Tooke's "Diversions of Purley," modify this view. According to these, the -ing in words like rising is not the -ing of the present participle; neither has it originated in the Anglo-Saxon -end. It is rather the -ing in words like morning; which is anything but a participle of the non-existent verb morn, and which has originated in the Anglo-Saxon substantival termination -ung. Upon this Rask writes as follows:—"Gitsung, gewilnung = desire; swutelung = manifestation; claensung = a cleansing; sceawung = view, contemplation; eordh-beofung = an earthquake; gesomnung = an assembly. This termination is chiefly used in forming substantives from verbs of the first class in -ian; as hálgung = consecration, from hálgian = to consecrate. These verbs are all feminine."—"Anglo-Saxon Grammar," p. 107.

Now, whatever may be the theory of the origin of the termination -ing in old phrases like rising early is healthy, it cannot apply to expressions of recent introduction. Here the direct origin in -ung is out of the question.

The view, then, that remains to be taken of the forms in question is this:

1. That the older forms in -ing are substantival in origin, and = the Anglo-Saxon -ung.

2. That the latter ones are irregularly participial, and have been formed on a false analogy.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XXX.

THE PAST PARTICIPLE.

s. 346. A. The participle in -EN.—In the Anglo-Saxon this participle was declined like the adjectives. Like the adjectives, it is, in the present English, undeclined.

In Anglo-Saxon it always ended in -en, as sungen, funden, bunden. In English this -en is often wanting, as found, bound; the word bounden being antiquated.

Words where the -en is wanting may be viewed in two lights; 1, they may be looked upon as participles that have lost their termination; 2, they may be considered as praeterites with a participial sense.

s. 347. Drank, drunk, drunken.—With all words wherein the vowel of the plural differs from that of the singular, the participle takes the plural form. To say I have drunk, is to use an ambiguous expression; since drunk may be either a participle minus its termination, or a praeterite with a participial sense. To say I have drank, is to use a praeterite for a participle. To say I have drunken, is to use an unexceptional form.

In all words with a double form, as spake and spoke, brake and broke, clave and clove, the participle follows the form in o, as spoken, broken, cloven. Spaken, braken, claven are impossible forms. There are degrees in laxity of language, and to say the spear is broke is better than to say the spear is brake.

s. 348. As a general rule, we find the participle in -en wherever the praeterite is strong; indeed, the participle in -en may be called the strong participle, or the participle of the strong conjugation. Still the two forms do not always coincide. In mow, mowed, mown, sow, sowed, sown; and several other words, we find the participle strong, and the praeterite weak. I remember no instances of the converse. This is only another way of saying that the praeterite has a greater tendency to pass from strong to weak than the participle.

s. 349. In the Latin language the change from s to r, and vice versâ, is very common. We have the double forms arbor and arbos, honor and honos, &c. Of this change we have a few specimens in English. The words rear and raise, as compared with each other, are examples. In Anglo-Saxon a few words undergo a similar change in the plural number of the strong praeterites.

Ceóse, I choose; ceâs, I chose; curon, we chose; gecoren, chosen. Forleóse, I lose; forleás, I lost; forluron, we lost; forloren, lost. Hreose, I rush; hreás, I rushed; hruron, we rushed; gehroren, rushed.

This accounts for the participial form forlorn, or lost, in New High German verloren. In Milton's lines,

—— the piercing air Burns frore, and cold performs the effect of fire, Paradise Lost, b. ii.,

we have a form from the Anglo-Saxon participle gefroren = frozen.

s. 350. B. The participle in -D, -T, or -ED.—In the Anglo-Saxon this participle was declined like the adjective. Like the adjective, it is, in the present English, undeclined.

In Anglo-Saxon it differed in form from the praeterite, inasmuch as it ended in -ed, or -t, whereas the praeterite ended in -ode, -de, or -te: as, lufode, baernde, dypte, praeterites; gelufod, baerned, dypt, participles.

As the ejection of the e (in one case final in the other not) reduces words like baerned and baernde to the same form, it is easy to account for the present identity of form between the weak praeterites and the participles in -d: e.g., I moved, I have moved, &c.

s. 351. The prefix Y.—In the older writers, and in works written, like Thomson's "Castle of Indolence," in imitation of them, we find prefixed to the praeterite participle the letter y-, as, yclept = called: yclad = clothed: ydrad = dreaded.

The following are the chief facts and the current opinion concerning this prefix:—

1. It has grown out of the fuller forms ge-: Anglo-Saxon, ge-: Old Saxon, gi-: Moeso-Gothic, ga-: Old High German, ka-, cha-, ga-, ki-, gi-.

2. It occurs in each and all of the Germanic languages of the Gothic stock.

3. It occurs, with a few fragmentary exceptions, in none of the Scandinavian languages of the Gothic stock.

4. In Anglo-Saxon it occasionally indicates a difference of sense; as, hâten = called, ge-hâten = promised; boren = borne, ge-boren = born.

5. It occurs in nouns as well as verbs.

6. Its power, in the case of nouns, is generally some idea of association, or collection.—Moeso-Gothic, sinths = a journey, ga-sintha = a companion; Old High German, perc = hill; ki-perki (gebirge) = a range of hills.

7. But it has also a frequentative power; a frequentative power, which is, in all probability, secondary to its collective power; since things which recur frequently recur with a tendency to collection or association; Middle High German, ge-rassel = rustling; ge-rumpel = c-rumple.

8. And it has also the power of expressing the possession of a quality.

Anglo-Saxon. English. Anglo-Saxon. Latin.

Feax Hair Ge-feax Comatus. Heorte Heart Ge-heort Cordatus. Stence Odour Ge-stence Odorus.

This power is also a collective, since every quality is associated with the object that possesses it; a sea with waves = a wavy sea.

9. Hence it is probable that the ga-, ki-, or gi-, Gothic, is the cum of Latin languages. Such, at least, is Grimm's view, as given in the "Deutsche Grammatik," i. 1016.

Concerning this, it may be said that it is deficient in an essential point. It does not show how the participle past is collective. Undoubtedly it may be said that every such participle is in the condition of words like ge-feax and ge-heort; i.e., that they imply an association between the object and the action or state. But this does not seem to be Grimm's view; he rather suggests that the ge- may have been a prefix to verbs in general, originally attached to all their forms, but finally abandoned everywhere except in the case of the participle.

The theory of this prefix has yet to assume a satisfactory form.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XXXI.

COMPOSITION.

s. 352. In the following words, amongst many others, we have palpable and indubitable specimens of composition—day-star, vine-yard, sun-beam, apple-tree, ship-load, silver-smith, &c. The words palpable and indubitable have been used, because in many cases, as will be seen hereafter, it is difficult to determine whether a word be a true compound or not.

s. 353. Now, in each of the compounds quoted above, it may be seen that it is the second word which is qualified, or defined, by the first, and that it is not the first which is qualified, or defined, by the second. Of yards, beams, trees, loads, smiths, there may be many sorts, and, in order to determine what particular sort of yard, beam, tree, load, or smith, may be meant, the words vine, sun, apple, ship, and silver, are prefixed. In compound words it is the first term that defines or particularises the second.

s. 354. That the idea given by the word apple-tree is not referable to the words apple and tree, irrespective of the order in which they occur, may be seen by reversing the position of them. The word tree-apple, although not existing in the language, is as correct a word as thorn-apple. In tree-apple, the particular sort of apple meant is denoted by the word tree, and if there were in our gardens various sorts of plants called apples, of which some grew along the ground and others upon trees, such a word as tree-apple would be required in order to be opposed to earth-apple, or ground-apple, or some word of the kind.

In the compound words tree-apple and apple-tree, we have the same elements differently arranged. However, as the word tree-apple is not current in the language, the class of compounds indicated by it may seem to be merely imaginary. Nothing is farther from being the case. A tree-rose is a rose of a particular sort. The generality of roses being on shrubs, this grows on a tree. Its peculiarity consists in this fact, and this particular character is expressed by the word tree prefixed. A rose-tree is a tree of a particular sort, distinguished from apple-trees, and trees in general (in other words, particularised or defined), by the word rose prefixed.

A ground-nut is a nut particularised by growing in the ground. A nut-ground is a ground particularised by producing nuts.

A finger-ring, as distinguished from an ear-ring, and from rings in general (and so particularised), is a ring for the finger. A ring-finger, as distinguished from fore-fingers, and from fingers in general (and so particularised), is a finger whereon rings are worn.

s. 355. At times this rule seems to be violated. The words spit-fire and dare-devil seem exceptions to it. At the first glance it seems, in the case of a spit-fire, that what he (or she) spits is fire; and that, in the case of a dare-devil, what he (or she) dares is the devil. In this case the initial words spit and dare are particularised by the final ones fire and devil. The true idea, however, confirms the original rule. A spit-fire voids his fire by spitting. A dare-devil, in meeting the fiend, would not shrink from him, but would defy him. A spit-fire is not one who spits fire, but one whose fire is spit. A dare-devil is not one who dares even the devil, but one by whom the devil is even dared.

s. 356. Of the two elements of a compound word, which is the most important? In one sense the latter, in another sense the former. The latter word is the most essential; since the general idea of trees must exist before it can be defined or particularised; so becoming the idea which we have in apple-tree, rose-tree, &c. The former word, however, is the most influential. It is by this that the original idea is qualified. The latter word is the staple original element: the former is the superadded influencing element. Compared with each other, the former element is active, the latter passive. Etymologically speaking, the former element, in English compounds, is the most important.

s. 357. Most numerous are the observations that bear upon the detail of the composition of words; e.g., how nouns combine with nouns, as in sun-beam; nouns with verbs, as in dare-devil, &c. It is thought however, sufficient in the present work to be content with, 1. defining the meaning of the term composition; 2. explaining the nature of some obscure compounds.

Composition is the joining together, in language, of two different words, and treating the combination as a single term. Observe the words in italics.

In language.—A great number of our compounds, like the word merry-making, are divided by the sign -, or the hyphen. It is very plain that if all words spelt with a hyphen were to be considered as compounds, the formation of them would be not a matter of speech, or language, but one of writing or spelling. This distinguishes compounds in language from mere printers' compounds.

Two.—For this, see s. 369.

Different.—In Old High German we find the form selp-selpo. Here there is the junction of two words, but not the junction of two different ones. This distinguishes composition from gemination.

Words.—In father-s, clear-er, four-th, &c., there is the addition of a letter or a syllable, and it may be even of the part of a word. There is no addition, however, of a whole word. This distinguishes composition from derivation.

Treating the combination as a single term.—In determining between derived words and compound words, there is an occasional perplexity; the perplexity, however, is far greater in determining between a compound word and two words. In the eyes of one grammarian the term mountain height may be as truly a compound word as sun-beam. In the eyes of another grammarian it may be no compound word, but two words, just as Alpine height is two words; mountain being dealt with as an adjective. It is in the determination of this that the accent plays an important part.

s. 358. As a preliminary to a somewhat subtle distinction, the attention of the reader is drawn to the following line, slightly altered, from Churchill:—

"Then rést, my friénd, and spáre thy précious bréath."

On each of the syllables rést, friénd, spáre, préc-, bréath, there is an accent. Each of these syllables must be compared with the one that precedes it; rest with then, friend with my, and so on throughout the line. Compared with the word and, the word spare is not only accented, but the accent is conspicuous and prominent. There is so little on and, so much on spare, that the disparity of accent is very manifest.

Now, if in the place of and, there were some other word, a word not so much accented as spare, but still more accented than and, this disparity would be diminished, and the accents of the two words might be said to be at par, or nearly so. As said before, the line was slightly altered from Churchill, the real reading being

"Then rést, my friénd, spare, spare thy précious bréath."

In the true reading we actually find what had previously only been supposed. In the words spare, spare, the accents are nearly at par. Such the difference between accent at par and disparity of accent.

Good illustrations of the parity and disparity of accent may be drawn from certain names of places. Let there be such a sentence as the following: the lime house near the bridge north of the new port. Compare the parity of accent on the pairs of words lime and house, bridge and north, new and port, with the disparity of accent in the compound words Límehouse, Brídgenorth, and Néwport. The separate words beef steak, where the accent is nearly at par, compared with the compound word sweépstakes, where there is a great disparity of accent, are further illustrations of the same difference.

The difference between a compound word and a pair of words is further illustrated by comparing such terms as the following:—bláck bírd, meaning a bird that is black, with bláckbird = the Latin merula; blúe béll, meaning a bell that is blue, with blúebell, the flower. Expressions like a shárp edgéd instrument, meaning an instrument that is sharp and has edges, as opposed to a shárp-edged instrument, meaning an instrument with sharp edges, further exemplify this difference.

Subject to a few exceptions, it may be laid down, that, in the English language, there is no composition unless there is either a change of form or a change of accent.

s. 359. The reader is now informed, that unless he has taken an exception to either a statement or an inference, he has either seen beyond what has been already laid down by the author, or else has read him with insufficient attention. This may be shown by drawing a distinction between a compound form and a compound idea.

In the words a red house, each word preserves its natural and original meaning, and the statement suggested by the term is that a house is red. By a parity of reasoning a mad house should mean a house that is mad; and provided that each word retain its natural meaning and its natural accent, such is the fact. Let a house mean, as it often does, a family. Then the phrase, a mad house, means that the house, or family, is mad, just as a red house means that the house is red. Such, however, is not the current meaning of the word. Every one knows that a mad house means a house for mad men; in which case it is treated as a compound word, and has a marked accent on the first syllable, just as Límehouse has. Now, compared with the word red house, meaning a house of a red colour, and compared with the words mad house, meaning a deranged family, the word mádhouse, in its common sense, expressed a compound idea; as opposed to two ideas, or a double idea. The word beef steak is evidently a compound idea; but as there is no disparity of accent, it is not a compound word. Its sense is compound. Its form is not compound but double. This indicates the objection anticipated, which is this: viz., that a definition, which would exclude such a word as beef steak from the list of compounds, is, for that very reason, exceptionable. I answer to this, that the term in question is a compound idea, and not a compound form; in other words, that it is a compound in logic, but not a compound in etymology. Now etymology, taking cognisance of forms only, has nothing to do with ideas, except so far as they influence forms.

Such is the commentary upon the words, treating the combination as a single term; in other words, such the difference between a compound word and two words. The rule, being repeated, stands (subject to exceptions indicated above) thus:—there is no true composition without either a change of form or a change of accent.

s. 360. As I wish to be clear upon this point, I shall illustrate the statement by its application.

The term trée-rose is often pronounced trée róse; that is, with the accent at par. It is compound in the one case; it is a pair of words in the other.

The terms mountain ash and mountain height are generally (perhaps always) pronounced with an equal accent on the syllables mount- and ash, mount- and height, respectively. In this case the word mountain must be dealt with as an adjective, and the words considered as two. The word moúntain wave is often pronounced with a visible diminution of accent on the last syllable. In this case there is a disparity of accent, and the word is compound.

s. 361. The following quotation indicates a further cause of perplexity in determining between compound words and two words:—

1.

A wet sheet and a blowing gale, A breeze that follows fast; That fills the white and swelling sail, And bends the gallant mast.—ALLAN CUNNINGHAM.

2.

Britannia needs no bulwarks, No towers along the steep; Her march is o'er the mountain-wave, Her home is on the deep.—THOMAS CAMPBELL.

To speak first of the term gallant mast. If gallant mean brave, there are two words. If the words be two, there is a stronger accent on mast. If the accent on mast be stronger, the rhyme with fast is more complete; in other words, the metre favours the notion of the words being considered as two. Gallant-mast, however, is a compound word, with an especial nautical meaning. In this case the accent is stronger on gal- and weaker on -mast. This, however, is not the state of things that the metre favours. The same applies to mountain wave. The same person who in prose would throw a stronger accent on mount- and a weaker one on wave (so dealing with the word as a compound), might, in poetry, the words two, by giving to the last syllable a parity of accent.

The following quotation from Ben Jonson may be read in two ways; and the accent may vary with the reading:

1.

Lay thy bow of pearl apart, And thy silver shining quiver.

2.

Lay thy bow of pearl apart, And thy silver-shining quiver.—Cynthia's Revels.

s. 362. On certain words wherein the fact of their being compound is obscured.—Composition is the addition of a word to a word, derivation is the addition of certain letters or syllables to a word. In a compound form each element has a separate and independent existence; in a derived form, only one of the elements has such. Now it is very possible that in an older stage of a language two words may exist, may be put together, and may so form a compound, each word having, then, a separate and independent existence. In a later stage of language, however, only one of these words may have a separate and independent existence, the other having become obsolete. In this case a compound word would take the appearance of a derived one, since but one of its elements could be exhibited as a separate and independent word. Such is the case with, amongst others, the word bishop-ric. In the present language the word ric has no separate and independent existence. For all this, the word is a true compound, since, in Anglo-Saxon, we have the noun ríce as a separate, independent word, signifying kingdom or domain.

Again, without becoming obsolete, a word may alter its form. This is the case with most of our adjectives in -ly. At present they appear derivative; their termination -ly having no separate and independent existence. The older language, however, shows that they are compounds; since -ly is nothing else than -lic, Anglo-Saxon; -lih, Old High German; -leiks, Moeso-Gothic; = like, or similis, and equally with it an independent separate word.

s. 363. "Subject to a few exceptions, it may be laid down, that there is no true composition unless there is either a change of form or a change of accent."—Such is the statement made in s. 358. The first class of exceptions consists of those words where the natural tendency to disparity of accent is traversed by some rule of euphony. For example, let two words be put together, which at their point of contact form a combination of sounds foreign to our habits of pronunciation. The rarity of the combination will cause an effort in utterance. The effort in utterance will cause an accent to be laid on the latter half of the compound. This will equalize the accent, and abolish the disparity. The word monkshood, the name of a flower (aconitum napellus), where, to my ear at least, there is quite as much accent on the -hood as on the monks-, may serve in the way of illustration. Monks is one word, hood another. When joined together, the h- of the -hood is put in immediate apposition with the s of the monks-. Hence the combination monkshood. At the letters s and h is the point of contact. Now the sound of s followed immediately by the sound of h is a true aspirate. But true aspirates are rare in the English language. Being of rare occurrence, the pronunciation of them is a matter of attention and effort; and this attention and effort create an accent which otherwise would be absent. Hence words like mónks-hóod, well-héad, and some others.

Real reduplications of consonants, as in hóp-póle, may have the same parity of accent with the true aspirates: and for the same reasons. They are rare combinations that require effort and attention.

s. 364. The second class of exceptions contains those words wherein between the first element and the second there is so great a disparity, either in the length of the vowel, or the length of the syllable en masse, as to counteract the natural tendency of the first element to become accented. One of the few specimens of this class (which after all may consist of double words) is the term upstánding. Here it should be remembered, that words like hapházard, foolhárdy, uphólder, and withhóld come under the first class of the exceptions.

s. 365. The third class of exceptions contains words like perchánce and perháps. In all respects but one these are double words, just as by chance is a double word. Per, however, differs from by in having no separate existence. This sort of words we owe to the multiplicity of elements (classical and Gothic) in the English language.

s. 366. Peacock, peahen.—If these words be rendered masculine or feminine by the addition of the elements -cock and -hen, the statements made in the beginning of the present chapter are invalidated. Since, if the word pea- be particularized, qualified, or defined by the words -cock and -hen, the second term defines or particularises the first, which is contrary to the rule of s. 356. The truth, however, is, that the words -cock and -hen are defined by the prefix pea-. Preparatory to the exhibition of this, let us remember that the word pea (although now found in composition only) is a true and independent substantive, the name of a species of fowl, like pheasant, partridge, or any other appellation. It is the Latin pavo, German pfau. Now if the word peacock mean a pea (pfau or pavo) that is a male, then do wood-cock, black-cock, and bantam-cock, mean woods, blacks, and bantams that are male. Or if the word peahen mean a pea (pfau or pavo) that is female, then do moorhen and guineahen mean moors and guineas that are female. Again, if a peahen mean a pea (pfau or pavo) that is female, then does the compound pheasant-hen mean the same as hen-pheasant; which is not the case. The fact is that peacock means a cock that is a pea (pfau or pavo); peahen means a hen that is a pea (pfau or pavo); and, finally, peafowl means a fowl that is a pea (pfau or pavo). In the same way moorfowl means, not a moor that is connected with a fowl, but a fowl that is connected with a moor.

s. 367. It must be clear that in every compound word there are, at least, two parts; i.e., the whole or part of the original, and the whole or part of the superadded word. In the most perfect forms of inflection, however, there is a third element, viz., a vowel, consonant, or syllable that joins the first word with the second.

In the older forms of all the Gothic languages the presence of this third element was the rule rather than the exception. In the present English it exists in but few words.

a. The -a- in black-a-moor is possibly such a connecting element.

b. The -in- in night-in-gale is most probably such a connecting element. Compare the German form nacht-i-gale, and remember the tendency of vowels to take the sound of -ng before g.

s. 368. Improper compounds.—The -s- in words like Thur-s-day, hunt-s-man, may be one of two things.

a. It may be the sign of the genitive case, so that Thursday = Thoris dies. In this case the word is an improper compound, since it is like the word pater-familias in Latin, in a common state of syntactical construction.

b. It may be a connecting sound, like the -i- in nacht-i-gale. Reasons for this view occur in the following fact:—

In the modern German languages the genitive case of feminine nouns ends otherwise than in -s. Nevertheless, the sound of -s- occurs in composition equally, whether the noun it follows be masculine or feminine. This fact, as far as it goes, makes it convenient to consider the sound in question as a connective rather than a case. Probably, it is neither one nor the other exactly, but the effect of a false analogy.

s. 369. Decomposites.—"Composition is the joining together of two words."—See s. 357.

Words like mid-ship-man, gentle-man-like, &c., where the number of verbal elements seems to amount to three, are no exception to this rule; since compound radicals like midship and gentleman, are, for the purposes of composition, single words. Compounds wherein one element is compound are called decomposites.

s. 370. There are a number of words which are never found by themselves; or, if so found, have never the same sense that they have in combination. Mark the word combination. The terms in question are points of combination, not of composition: since they form not the parts of words, but the parts of phrases. Such are the expressions time and tide—might and main—rede me my riddle—pay your shot—rhyme and reason, &c. These words are evidently of the same class, though not of the same species with bishopric, colewort, spillikin, gossip, mainswearer, &c.

These last-mentioned terms give us obsolete words preserved in composition. The former give us obsolete words preserved in combination.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XXXII.

ON DERIVATION AND INFLECTION.

s. 371. Derivation, like etymology, is a word used in a wide and in a limited sense. In the wide sense of the term, every word, except it be in the simple form of a root, is a derived word. In this sense the cases, numbers, and genders of nouns, the persons, moods, and tenses of verbs, the ordinal numbers, the diminutives, and even the compound words, are alike matters of derivation. In the wide sense of the term the word fathers, from father, is equally in a state of derivation with the word strength from strong.

In the use of the word, even in its limited sense, there is considerable laxity and uncertainty.

Gender, number, case.—These have been called the accidents of the noun, and these it has been agreed to separate from derivation in its stricter sense, or from derivation properly so called, and to class together under the name of declension. Nouns are declined.

Person, number, tense, voice.—These have been called the accidents of a verb, and these it has been agreed to separate from derivation properly so called, and to class together under the name of conjugation. Verbs are conjugated.

Conjugation and declension constitute inflection. Nouns and verbs, speaking generally, are inflected.

Inflection, a part of derivation in its wider sense, is separated from derivation properly so called, or from derivation in its limited sense.

The degrees of comparison, or certain derived forms of adjectives; the ordinals, or certain derived forms of the numerals; the diminutives, &c., or certain derived forms of the substantive, have been separated from derivation properly so called, and considered as parts of inflection. I am not certain, however, that for so doing there is any better reason than mere convenience.

Derivation proper, the subject of the present chapter, comprises all the changes that words undergo, which are not referable to some of the preceding heads. As such, it is, in its details, a wider field than even composition. The details, however, are not entered into.

s. 372. Derivation proper may be divided according to a variety of principles. Amongst others—

I. According to the evidence.—In the evidence that a word is not simple, but derived, there are at least two degrees.

a. That the word strength is a derived word I collect to a certainty from the word strong, an independent form, which I can separate from it. Of the nature of the word strength there is the clearest evidence, or evidence of the first degree.

b. Fowl, hail, nail, sail, tail, soul; in Anglo-Saxon, fugel, haegel, naegel, segel, taegel, sawel.—These words are by the best grammarians considered as derivatives. Now, with these words I cannot do what was done with the word strength, I cannot take from them the part which I look upon as the derivational addition, and after that leave an independent word. Strength -th is a true word; fowl or fugel -l is no true word. If I believe these latter words to be derivations at all, I do it because I find in words like harelle, &c., the -l as a derivational addition. Yet, as the fact of a word being sometimes used as a derivational addition does not preclude it from being at other times a part of the root, the evidence that the words in question are not simple, but derived, is not cogent. In other words, it is evidence of the second degree.

II. According to the effect.—The syllable -en in the word whiten changes the noun white into a verb. This is its effect. We may so classify derivational forms as to arrange combinations like -en (whose effect is to give the idea of the verb) in one order; whilst combinations like -th (whose effect is, as in the word strength, to give the idea of abstraction) form another order.

III. According to the form.—Sometimes the derivational element is a vowel (as the -ie in doggie), sometimes a consonant (as the -th in strength), sometimes a vowel and consonant combined; in other words a syllable (as the -en, in whiten), sometimes a change of vowel without any addition (as the -i in tip, compared with top), sometimes a change of consonant without any addition (as the z in prize, compared with price). Sometimes it is a change of accent, like a súrvey, compared with to survéy. To classify derivations in this manner, is to classify them according to their form.

IV. According to the historical origin of the derivational elements.

V. According to the number of the derivational elements.—In fisher, as compared with fish, there is but one derivational affix. In fishery, as compared with fish, the number of derivational elements is two.

s. 373. In words like bishopric, and many others mentioned in the last Chapter, we had compound words under the appearance of derived ones; in words like upmost, and many others, we have derivation under the appearance of composition.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XXXIII.

ADVERBS.

s. 374. Adverbs.—The adverbs are capable of being classified after a variety of principles.

Firstly, they may be divided according to their meaning. In this case we speak of the adverbs of time, place, number, manner.

s. 375. Well, better, ill, worse.—Here we have a class of adverbs expressive of degree, or intensity. Adverbs of this kind are capable of taking an inflection, viz., that of the comparative and superlative degrees.

Now, then, here, there.—In the idea expressed by these words there are no degrees of intensity. Adverbs of this kind are incapable of taking any inflection.

Adverbs differ from nouns and verbs in being susceptible of one sort of inflection only, viz., that of degree.

s. 376. Secondly, adverbs may be divided according to their form and origin.

Better, worse.—Here the words are sometimes adverbs; sometimes adjectives.—This book is better than that—here better agrees with book, and is, therefore, adjectival. This looks better than that—here better qualifies looks, and is therefore adverbial. Again; to do a thing with violence is equivalent to do a thing violently. This shows how adverbs may arise out of cases. In words like the English better, the Latin vi = violenter, the Greek [Greek: kalon] = [Greek: kalos], we have adjectives in their degrees, and substantives in their cases, with adverbial powers. In other words, nouns are deflected from their natural sense to an adverbial one. Adverbs of this kind are adverbs of deflection.

Brightly, bravely.—Here an adjective is rendered adverbial by the addition of the derivative syllable -ly. Adverbs like brightly, &c., may be called adverbs of derivation.

Now.—This word has not satisfactorily been shown to have originated as any other part of speech but as an adverb. Words of this sort are adverbs absolute.

s. 377. When, now, well, worse, better—here the adverbial expression consists in a single word, and is simple. To-day, yesterday, not at all, somewhat—here the adverbial expression consists of a compound word, or a phrase. This indicates the division of adverbs into simple and complex.

s. 378. Adverbs of deflection may originally have been—

a. Substantive; as needs in such expressions as I needs must go.

b. Adjectives; as the sun shines bright.

c. Prepositions; as I go in, we go out; though, it should be added, that in this case we may as reasonably derive the preposition from the adverb as the adverb from the preposition.

s. 379. Adjectives of deflection derived from substantives may originally have been—

a. Substantives in the genitive case; as needs.

b. Substantives in the dative case; as whil-om, an antiquated word meaning at times, and often improperly spelt whilome. In such an expression as wait a while, the word still exists; and while = time, or rather pause; since, in Danish, hvile = rest.

El-se (for ell-es); unawar-es; eftsoon-s are adjectives in the genitive case. By rights is a word of the same sort; the -s being the sign of the genitive singular like the -s in father's, and not of the accusative plural like the -s in fathers.

Once (on-es); twice (twi-es); thrice (thri-es) are numerals in the genitive case.

s. 380. Darkling.—This is no participle of a verb darkle, but an adverb of derivation, like unwaringûn = unawares, Old High German; stillinge = secretly, Middle High German; blindlings = blindly, New High German; darnungo = secretly, Old Saxon; nichtinge = by night, Middle Dutch; blindeling = blindly, New Dutch; baeclinga = backwards, handlunga = hand to hand, Anglo-Saxon; and, finally, blindlins, backlins, darklins, middlins, scantlins, stridelins, stowlins, in Lowland Scotch.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XXXIV.

ON CERTAIN ADVERBS OF PLACE.

s. 381. It is a common practice for languages to express by different modifications of the same root the three following ideas:—

1. The idea of rest in a place.

2. The idea of motion towards a place.

3. The idea of motion from a place.

This habit gives us three correlative adverbs—one of position, and two of direction.

s. 382. It is also a common practice of language to depart from the original expression of each particular idea, and to interchange the signs by which they are expressed; so that a word originally expressive of simple position or rest in a place may be used instead of the word expressive of direction, or motion between two places. Hence we say, come here, when come hither would be the more correct expression.

s. 383. The full amount of change in this respect may be seen from the following table, illustrative of the forms here, hither, hence.

Moeso-Gothic thar, thath, thathro, there, thither, thence. hêr, hith, hidrô, here, hither, hence. Old High huâr, huara, huanana, where, whither, whence. German dâr, dara, danana, there, thither, thence. hear, hêra, hinana, here, hither, hence. Old Saxon huar, huar, huanan, where, whither, whence. thar, thar, thanan, there, thither, thence. hêr, her, henan, here, hither, hence. Anglo-Saxon thar, thider, thonan, there, thither, thence. hvar, hvider, hvonan, where, whither, whence. hêr, hider, henan, here, hither, hence. Old Norse thar, thadhra, thadhan, there, thither, thence. hvar, hvert, hvadhan, where, whither, whence. hêr, hedhra, hedhan, here, hither, hence. Middle High dâ, dan, dannen, there, thither, thence. German wâ, war, wannen, where, whither, whence. hie, her, hennen, here, hither, hence. Modern High da, dar, dannen, there, thither, thence. German wo, wohin, wannen, where, whither, whence. hier, her, hinnen, here, hither, hence.

s. 384. Local terminations of this kind, in general, were commoner in the earlier stages of language than at present. The following are from the Moeso-Gothic:—

Innathrô = from within. Utathrô = from without. Iuthathrô = from above. Fáirrathrô = from afar. Allathrô = from all quarters.

s. 385. The -ce ( = es) in hen-ce, when-ce, then-ce, has yet to be satisfactorily explained. The Old English is whenn-es, thenn-es. As far, therefore, as the spelling is concerned, they are in the same predicament with the word once, which is properly on-es, the genitive of one. This origin is probable, but not certain.

s. 386. Yonder.—In the Moeso-Gothic we have the following forms: jáinar, jáina, jánthrô = illic, illuc, illinc. They do not, however, quite explain the form yon-d-er. It is not clear whether the d = the -d in jâind, or the th in jainthro.

s. 387. Anon, is used by Shakspeare, in the sense of presently.—The probable history of this word is as follows: the first syllable contains a root akin to the root yon, signifying distance in place. The second is a shortened form of the Old High German and Middle High German, -nt, a termination expressive, 1, of removal in space; 2, of removal in time; Old High German, enont, ennont; Middle High German, enentlig, jenunt = beyond.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XXXV.

ON WHEN, THEN, AND THAN.

s. 388. The Anglo-Saxon adverbs are whenne and thenne = when, then.

The masculine accusative cases of the relative and demonstrative pronoun are hwaene (hwone) and thaene (thone).

Notwithstanding the difference, the first form is a variety of the second; so that the adverbs when and then are really pronominal in origin.

s. 389. As to the word than, the conjunction of comparison, it is another form of then; the notions of order, sequence, and comparison being allied.

This is good; then (or next in order) that is good, is an expression sufficiently similar to this is better than that to have given rise to it; and in Scotch and certain provincial dialects we actually find than instead of then.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XXXVI.

PREPOSITIONS AND CONJUNCTIONS.

s. 390. Prepositions.—Prepositions are wholly unsusceptible of inflection.

s. 391. Conjunctions.—Conjunctions, like prepositions, are wholly unsusceptible of inflection.

s. 392. Yes, no.—Although not may be considered to be an adverb, nor a conjunction, and none a noun, these two words, the direct categorical affirmative, and the direct categorical negative, are referable to none of the current parts of speech. Accurate grammar places them in a class by themselves.

s. 393. Particles.—The word particle is a collective term for all those parts of speech that are naturally unsusceptible of inflection; comprising, 1, interjections; 2, direct categorical affirmatives; 3, direct categorical negatives; 4, absolute conjunctions; 5, absolute prepositions; 6, adverbs unsusceptible of degrees of comparison; 7, inseparable prefixes.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XXXVII.

ON THE GRAMMATICAL POSITION OF THE WORDS MINE AND THINE.

s. 394. The inflection of pronouns has its natural peculiarities in language. It has also its natural difficulties in philology. These occur not in one language in particular, but in all generally.

The most common peculiarity in the grammar of pronouns is the fact of what may be called their convertibility. Of this convertibility the following statements serve as illustration:—

1. Of case.—In our own language the words my and thy although at present possessives, were previously datives, and, earlier still, accusatives. Again, the accusative you replaces the nominative ye, and vice versâ.

2. Of number.—The words thou and thee are, except in the mouths of Quakers, obsolete. The plural forms, ye and you, have replaced them.

3. Of person.—The Greek language gives us examples of this in the promiscuous use of [Greek: nin], [Greek: min], [Greek: sphe], and [Greek: heautou]; whilst sich and sik are used with a similar latitude in the Middle High German and Scandinavian.

4. Of class.—The demonstrative pronouns become—

a. Personal pronouns. b. Relative pronouns. c. Articles.

The reflective pronoun often becomes reciprocal.

s. 395. These statements are made for the sake of illustrating, not of exhausting, the subject. It follows, however, as an inference from them, that the classification of pronouns is complicated. Even if we knew the original power and derivation of every form of every pronoun in a language, it would be far from an easy matter to determine therefrom the paradigm that they should take in grammar. To place a word according to its power in a late stage of language might confuse the study of an early stage. To say that because a word was once in a given class, it should always be so, would be to deny that in the present English they, these, and she are personal pronouns at all.

The two tests, then, of the grammatical place of a pronoun, its present power and its original power, are often conflicting.

s. 396. In the English language the point of most importance in this department of grammar is the place of forms like mine and thine; in other words, of the forms in -n.

Now, if we take up the common grammars of the English language as it is, we find, that, whilst my and thy are dealt with as genitive cases, mine and thine are considered adjectives. In the Anglo-Saxon grammars, however, min and thin, the older forms of mine and thine, are treated as genitives or possessives.

s. 397. This gives us two views of the words my and thy.

a. They may be genitives or possessives, which were originally datives or accusatives; in which case they are deduced from the Anglo-Saxon mec and thec.

b. They may be the Anglo-Saxon min and thin, minus the final -n.

Each of these views has respectable supporters. The former is decidedly preferred by the present writer.

s. 398. What, however, are thine and mine? Are they adjectives like meus, tuus, and suus, or cases like mei, tui, sui, in Latin, and hi-s in English?

It is no answer to say that sometimes they are one and sometimes the other. They were not so originally. They did not begin with meaning two things at once; on the contrary, they were either possessive cases, of which the power became subsequently adjectival, or adjectives, of which the power became subsequently possessive.

s. 399. In Anglo-Saxon and in Old Saxon there is but one form to express the Latin mei (or tui), on the one side, and meus, mea, meum (or tuus, &c.), on the other. In several other Gothic tongues, however, there was the following difference of form:

Moeso-Gothic meina = mei as opposed to meins = meus. theina = tui — theins = tuus. Old High German mîn = mei — mîner = meus. dîn = tui — dîner = tuus. Old Norse min = mei — minn = meus. thin = tui — thinn = tuus. Middle Dutch mîns = mei — mîn = meus. dîns = tui — dîn = tuus. Modern High German mein = mei — meiner = meus. dein = tui — deiner = tuus.

In these differences of form lie the best reasons for the assumption of a genitive case, as the origin of an adjectival form; and, undoubtedly, in those languages where both forms occur, it is convenient to consider one as a case and one as an adjective.

s. 400. But this is not the present question. In Anglo-Saxon there is but one form, min and thin = mei and meus, tui and tuus, indifferently. Is this form an oblique case or an adjective?

This involves two sorts of evidence.

s. 401. Etymological evidence.—Assuming two powers for the words min and thin, one genitive, and one adjectival, which is the original one? Or, going beyond the Anglo-Saxon, assuming that of two forms like meina and meins, the one has been derived from the other, which is the primitive, radical, primary, or original one?

Men, from whom it is generally unsafe to differ, consider that the adjectival form is the derived one; and, as far as forms like mîner, as opposed to mîn, are concerned, the evidence of the foregoing list is in their favour. But what is the case with the Middle Dutch? The genitive mîns is evidently the derivative of mîn.

The reason why the forms like mîner seem derived is because they are longer and more complex than the others. Nevertheless, it is by no means an absolute rule in philology that the least compound form is the oldest. A word may be adapted to a secondary meaning by a change in its parts in the way of omission, as well as by a change in the way of addition.

s. 402. As to the question whether it is most likely for an adjective to be derived from a case, or a case from an adjective, it may be said, that philology furnishes instances both ways. Ours is a case derived, in syntax at least, from an adjective. Cujum (as in cujum pecus) and sestertium are Latin instances of a nominative case being evolved from an oblique one.

s. 403. Syntactic evidence.—If in Anglo-Saxon we found such expressions as doel min = pars mei, hoelf thin = dimidium tui, we should have a reason, as far as it went, for believing in the existence of a true genitive. Such instances, however, have yet to be quoted.

s. 404. Again—as min and thin are declined like adjectives, even as meus and tuus are so declined, we have means of ascertaining their nature from the form they take in certain constructions; thus, mi-nra = me-orum, and min-re = me-ae, are the genitive plural and the dative singular respectively. Thus, too, the Anglo-Saxon for of thy eyes should be eagena thinra, and the Anglo-Saxon for to my widow, should be wuduwan minre; just as in Latin, they would be oculorum tuorum, and viduae meae.

If, however, instead of this we find such expressions as eagena thin, or wuduwan min, we find evidence in favour of a genitive case; for then the construction is not one of concord, but one of government, and the words thin and min must be construed as the Latin forms tui and mei would be in oculorum mei, and viduae mei; viz.: as genitive cases. Now, whether a sufficient proportion of such constructions exist or not, they have not yet been brought forward.

Such instances, even if quoted, would not be conclusive.

s. 405. Why would they not be conclusive? Because even of the adjective there are uninflected forms.

As early as the Moeso-Gothic stage of our language, we find rudiments of this omission of the inflection. The possessive pronouns in the neuter singular sometimes take the inflection, sometimes appear as crude forms, nim thata badi theinata = [Greek: airon sou ton krabbaton] (Mark ii. 9), opposed to nim thata badi thein, two verses afterwards. So also with mein and meinata. It is remarkable that this omission should begin with forms so marked as those of the neuter (-ata). It has, perhaps, its origin in the adverbial character of that gender.

Old High German.—Here the nominatives, both masculine and feminine, lose the inflection, whilst the neuter retains it—thin dohter, sîn quenâ, min dohter, sinaz lîb. In a few cases, when the pronoun comes after, even the oblique cases drop the inflection.

Middle High German.—Preceding the noun, the nominative of all genders is destitute of inflection; sîn lîb, mîn ere, dîn lîb, &c. Following the nouns, the oblique cases do the same; ine herse sîn. The influence of position should here be noticed. Undoubtedly a place after the substantive influences the omission of the inflection. This appears in its maximum in the Middle High German. In Moeso-Gothic we have mein leik and leik meinata.

s. 406. Now by assuming the extension of the Middle High German omission of the inflection to the Anglo-Saxon; and by supposing it to affect the words in question in all positions (i.e., both before and after their nouns), we may explain the constructions in question, in case they occur. But, as already stated, no instances of them have been quoted.

To suppose two adjectival forms, one inflected (min, minre, &c.), and one uninflected, or common to all genders and both numbers (min), is to suppose no more than is the case with the uninflected the, as compared with the inflected thaet.

s. 407. Hence, the evidence required in order to make a single instance of min or thin, the necessary equivalents to mei and tui, rather than to meus and tuus, must consist in the quotation from the Anglo-Saxon of some text, wherein min or thin occurs with a feminine substantive, in an oblique case, the pronoun preceding the noun. When this has been done, it will be time enough to treat mine and thine as the equivalents to mei and tui, rather than as those to meus and tuus.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XXXVIII.

ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE WEAK PRAETERITE.

s. 408. The remote origin of the weak praeterite in -d or -t, has been considered by Grimm. He maintains that it is the d in d-d, the reduplicate praeterite of do. In all the Gothic languages the termination of the past tense is either -da, -ta, -de, -dhi, -d, -t, or -ed, for the singular, and -don, -ton, -tûmês, or -dhum, for the plural; in other words, d, or an allied sound, appears once, if not oftener. In the plural praeterite of the Moeso-Gothic, however, we have something more, viz., the termination -dêdum; as nas-idêdum, nas-idêduth, nas-idedun, from nas-ja; sôk-idêdum, sôk-idêduth, sôk-idêdun, from sôk-ja; salb-ôdedum, salb-ôdêduth, salb-ôdêdun, from salbô. Here there is a second d. The same takes place with the dual form salb-ôdêduts, and with the subjunctive forms, salb-ôdêdjan, salb-ôdêduts, salb-ôdedi, salb-ôdêdeits, salb-ôdêdeima, salb-ôdedeith, salb-ôdedina. The English phrase, we did salve, as compared with salb-ôdedum, is confirmatory of this.

s. 409. Some remarks of Dr. Trithen's on the Slavonic praeterite, in the "Transactions of the Philological Society," induce me to prefer a different doctrine, and to identify the -d in words like moved, &c., with the -t of the passive participles of the Latin language; as found in mon-it-us, voc-at-us, rap-t-us, and probably in Greek forms like [Greek: tuph-th-eis].

1. The Slavonic praeterite is commonly said to possess genders: in other words, there is one form for speaking of a past action when done by a male, and another for speaking of a past action when done by a female.

2. These forms are identical with those of the participles, masculine or feminine, as the case may be. Indeed the praeterite is a participle. If, instead of saying ille amavit, the Latins said ille amatus, whilst, instead of saying illa amavit, they said illa amata, they would exactly use the grammar of the Slavonians.

3. Hence, as one class of languages, at least, gives us the undoubted fact of an active praeterite being identical with a passive participle, and as the participle and praeterite in question are nearly identical, we have a fair reason for believing that the d, in the English active praeterite, is the d of the participle, which in its turn, is the t of the Latin passive participle.

s. 410. The following extract gives Dr. Trithen's remarks on the Slavonic verb in his own words:—

"A peculiarity which distinguishes the grammar of all the Slavish languages, consists in the use of the past participle, taken in an active sense, for the purpose of expressing the praeterite. This participle generally ends in l; and much uncertainty prevails both as to its origin and its relations, though the termination has been compared by various philologists with similar affixes in the Sanscrit, and the classical languages.

"In the Old Slavish, or the language of the church, there are three methods of expressing the past tense: one of them consists in the union of the verb substantive with the participle; as,

Rek esm' chital esmi' Rek esi' chital esi' Rek est' chital est'.

"In the corresponding tense of the Slavonic dialect we have the verb substantive placed before the participle:

Ya sam imao mi' smo imali Ti si imao vi' ste imali On ye imao omi su imali.

"In the Polish it appears as a suffix:

Czytalem czytalismy Czytales czytaliscie Czytal czytalie.

"And in the Servian it follows the participle:

Igrao sam igrali smo Igrao si igrali ste Igrao ye igrali su.

"The ending -ao, of igrao and imao, stands for the Russian al, as in some English dialects a' is used for all."

* * * * *

PART V.

SYNTAX.

* * * * *

CHAPTER I.

ON SYNTAX IN GENERAL.

s. 411. The word syntax is derived from the Greek syn (with or together) and taxis (arrangement). It relates to the arrangement, or putting together, of words. Two or more words must be used before there can be any application of syntax.

There is to me a father.—Here we have a circumlocution equivalent to I have a father. In the English language the circumlocution is unnatural. In the Latin it is common. To determine this, is a matter of idiom rather than of syntax.

s. 412. In the English, as in all other languages, it is convenient to notice certain so-called figures of speech. They always furnish convenient modes of expression, and sometimes, as in the case of the one immediately about to be noticed, account for facts.

s. 413. Personification.—The ideas of apposition and collectiveness account for the apparent violations of the concord of number. The idea of personification applies to the concord of gender. A masculine or feminine gender, characteristic of persons, may be substituted for the neuter gender, characteristic of things. In this case the term is said to be personified.

The cities who aspired to liberty.—A personification of the idea expressed by cities is here necessary to justify the expression.

It, the sign of the neuter gender, as applied to a male or female child, is the reverse of the process.

s. 414. Ellipsis (from the Greek elleipein = to fall short), or a falling short, occurs in sentences like I sent to the bookseller's. Here the word shop or house is understood. Expressions like to go on all fours, and to eat of the fruit of the tree, are reducible to ellipses.

s. 415. Pleonasm (from the Greek pleoazein = to be in excess) occurs in sentences like the king, he reigns. Here the word he is superabundant.

My banks, they are furnished,—the most straitest sect,—these are pleonastic expressions. In the king, he reigns, the word king is in the same predicament as in the king, God bless him.

The double negative, allowed in Greek and Anglo-Saxon, but not admissible in English, is pleonastic.

The verb do, in I do speak, is not pleonastic. In respect to the sense it adds intensity. In respect to the construction it is not in apposition, but in the same predicament with verbs like must and should, as in I must go, &c.; i.e., it is a verb followed by an infinitive. This we know from its power in those languages where the infinitive has a characteristic sign; as, in German,

Die Augen thaten ihm winken.—GOETHE.

Besides this, make is similarly used in Old English,—But men make draw the branch thereof, and beren him to be graffed at Babyloyne.—Sir J. Mandeville.

s. 416. The figure zeugma.—They wear a garment like that of the Scythians, but a language peculiar to themselves.—The verb, naturally applying to garment only, is here used to govern language. This is called in Greek, zeugma (junction).

s. 417. My paternal home was made desolate, and he himself was sacrificed.—The sense of this is plain; he means my father. Yet no such substantive as father has gone before. It is supplied, however, from the word paternal. The sense indicated by paternal gives us a subject to which he can refer. In other words, the word he is understood, according to what is indicated, rather than according to what is expressed. This figure in Greek is called pros to semainomenon (according to the thing indicated).

s. 418.—Apposition,—Caesar, the Roman emperor, invades Britain.—-Here the words Roman emperor explain, or define, the word Caesar; and the sentence, filled up, might stand, Caesar, that is, the Roman emperor, &c. Again, the words Roman emperor might be wholly ejected; or, if not ejected, they might be thrown into a parenthesis. The practical bearing of this fact is exhibited by changing the form of the sentence, and inserting the conjunction and. In this case, instead of one person, two are spoken of, and the verb invades must be changed from the singular to the plural.

Now the words Roman emperor are said to be in apposition to Caesar. They constitute, not an additional idea, but an explanation of the original one. They are, as it were, laid alongside (appositi) of the word Caesar. Cases of doubtful number, wherein two substantives precede a verb, and wherein it is uncertain whether the verb should be singular or plural, are decided by determining whether the substantives be in apposition or the contrary. No matter how many nouns there may be, as long as it can be shown that they are in apposition, the verb is in the singular number.