VIII. THE PRINCIPLES OF ORTHOEPY…

VIII. THE PRINCIPLES OF ORTHOEPY

s. 240. The present chapter is one, not upon the details of the pronunciation of the English language, but upon the principles of orthoepy. For the details of pronunciation the reader is referred to Nares' Orthoepy, and to the common pronouncing dictionaries, with the preliminary recommendation to use them with caution. Orthoepy, a word derived from the Greek orthon (upright), and epos (a word), signifies the right utterance of words. Orthoepy differs from orthography by determining how words are spoken, whereas orthography decides how they are spelt. The one is a question of speech, the other a question of spelling. Orthography presupposes orthoepy.

s. 241. Of pronunciation there are two kinds, the colloquial and the rhetorical. In common conversation we pronounce the i in wind, like the i in bit; in rehearsing, or in declamation, however, we pronounce it like the i in bite; that is, we give it a diphthongal sound. In reading the Scriptures we say bless['e]d; in current speech we say blest. It is the same with many words occurring in poetry.

s. 242. Errors in pronunciation are capable of being classified. In the first place, they may be arranged according to their situation. The man who pronounces the verb to surv['e]y, as if it was s['u]rvey (that is, with the accent on the wrong syllable), errs in respect to the accentuation of the word; the situation, or seat of his error, being the accent. To say or[=a]tor instead of or[)a]tor is to err in respect to the quantity of the word, the seat of the error being in the quantity; and to pronounce the a in father, as it is pronounced in Yorkshire, or the s in sound, as it is pronounced in Devonshire (that is, as z), is to err in {173} the matter of the articulate sounds. To mispronounce a word because it is misspelt[34] is only indirectly an error of orthoepy. It is an error, not so much of orthoepy, as of orthography; and to give a wrong inflection to a word is not bad pronunciation but bad grammar. For practical purposes, however, many words that are really points of grammar and of orthography, may be dealt with as points of orthoepy.

That the preceding classification is natural I am induced to believe by the following circumstances. Errors in the way of articulation generally arise from a source different from those of accent and of quantity. Errors in accent and quantity are generally referable to insufficient grammatical or etymological knowledge, whilst the errors of articulation betray a provincial dialect.

The misdivision of syllables, an orthoepical error of a fourth kind, has in the English, and perhaps in other languages, given rise to a peculiar class of words. There have been those who have written a nambassador for an ambassador, misdividing the syllables, and misdistributing the sound of the letter n. The double form (a and an) of the English indefinite article, encourages this misdivision. Now, in certain words an error of this kind has had a permanent influence. The English word nag is, in Danish, oeg; the n, in English, having originally belonged to the indefinite an, which preceded it. The words, instead of being divided thus, an ag, were divided thus, a nag, and the fault became perpetuated. That the Danish is the true form we collect, firstly, from the ease with which the English form is accounted for, and, secondly, from the old Saxon form ehu, Latin equus. In adder we have the process reversed. The true form is nadder, old English; natter, German. Here the n is taken from the substantive and added to the article. In newt and eft we have each form. The list of words of this sort can be increased.

s. 243. In the second place, faults of pronunciation may be arranged according to their cause.

{174}

1. The fault of incompetent enunciation.--A person who says sick for thick, or elebben for eleven, does so, not because he knows no better, but because he cannot enounce the right sounds of th and v. He is incompetent to it. His error is not one of ignorance. It is an acoustic or a phonetic defect. As such it differs from--

2. The fault of erroneous enunciation.--This is the error of a person who talks of jocholate instead of chocolate. It is not that he cannot pronounce rightly, but that he mistakes the nature of the sound required. Still more the person who calls a hedge a nedge, and an edge a hedge.

s. 244. Incompetent enunciation, and erroneous enunciation are, however, only the proximate and immediate causes of bad orthoepy. Amongst the remote causes (the immediate causes of erroneous enunciation) are the following.

I. Undefined notions as to the language to which a word belongs.--The flower called anemone is variously pronounced. Those who know Greek say anem[=o]ne, speaking as if the word was written anemohny. The mass say, anem[)o]ne, speaking as if the word was written anemmony. Now, the doubt here is as to the language of the word. If it be Greek, it is anem[=o]ne.

[Greek: Haima rhodon tiktei, ta de dakrua tan anemonan].

BION.

And if it be English, it is (on the score of analogy) as undoubtedly an['e]mmony. The pronunciation of the word in point is determined when we have determined the language of it.

II. Mistakes as to fact, the language of a word being determined.--To know the word anem[=o]ne to be Greek, and to use it as a Greek word, but to call it anem[)o]ny, is not to be undecided as to a matter of language, but to be ignorant as to a matter of quantity.

III. Neglect of analogy.--Each and all of the following words, orator, theatre, senator, &c. are in the Latin language, from whence they are derived, accented on the second syllable; as or['a]tor, the['a]tre, sen['a]tor. In English, on the contrary, they are accented on the first; as ['o]rator, th['e]atre, {175} s['e]nator. The same is the case with many other words similarly derived. They similarly suffer a change of accent. So many words do this, that it is the rule in English for words to throw their accent from the second syllable (counting from the end of the word) to the third. It was on the strength of this rule,--in other words, on the analogies of orator, &c., that the English pronunciation of the Greek word [Greek: anemone] was stated to be an['e]mmone. Now, to take a word derived from the Latin, and to look to its original quantity only, without consulting the analogies of other words similarly derived, is to be neglectful of the analogies of our own language, and attentive to the quantities of a foreign one.

These, amongst others, the immediate causes of erroneous enunciation, have been adduced not for the sake of exhausting, but for the sake of illustrating the subject.

s. 245. In matters of orthoepy it is the usual custom to appeal to one of the following standards.

I. The authority of scholars.--This is of value up to a certain point only. The fittest person for determining the classical pronunciation of a word like anemone is the classical scholar; but the mere classical scholar is far from being the fittest person to determine the analogies that such a word follows in English.

II. _The usage of educated bodies, such as the bar, the pulpit, the senate, _&c.__--These are recommended by two circumstances: 1. The chance that each member of them is sufficiently a scholar in foreign tongues to determine the original pronunciation of derived words, and sufficiently a critic in his own language to be aware of the analogies that are in operation. 2. The quantity of imitators that, irrespective of the worth of his pronunciation, each individual can carry with him. On this latter ground the stage is a sort of standard.

The objection to the authority of educated bodies is its impracticability. It is only the usage of the component individuals that can be determined. Of these many may carry with them the dialects of their provinces, so that, although good standards on points of accent and quantity, they are bad ones upon points of articulation. {176}

III. The authority of societies constituted with the express purpose of taking cognizance of the language of the country.--These, although recognized in Italy and other parts of the Continent, have only been proposed in Great Britain. Their inefficacy arises from the inutility of attempting to fix that which, like language, is essentially fluctuating.

IV. The authority of the written language.--The value of this may be collected from the chapter on orthography.

V. These, amongst others, the standards that have been appealed to, are adduced not for the sake of exhausting the subject, but to show the unsatisfactory nature of authority in matters of speech.

s. 246. For a person, on a point of pronunciation, to trust to his own judgment, he must be capable, with every word that he doubts about, of discussing three questions:--

I. The abstract or theoretical propriety of a certain pronunciation.--To determine this he must have a sufficient knowledge of foreign tongues and a sufficient knowledge of English analogies. He must also have some test by which he can determine to what language an equivocal word belongs. Of tests for this purpose, one, amongst others, is the following:--Let it be asked whether the word lens (in Optics) is English or Latin; whether it is to be considered as a naturalised word or a strange one. The following fact will give an answer. There is of the word lens a plural number, and this plural number is the English form lenses, and not the Latin form lentes. The existence of an English inflection proves that the word to which it belongs is English, although its absence does not prove the contrary. That the word anemone is English (and consequently pronounced anem[)o]ne) we know from the plural form, which is not anemonae, but anemones.

II. The preference of one pronunciation over another on the score of utility.--The word ascetic, for certain orthographical reasons, notwithstanding its origin from the Greek word aske['o], is called assetic. From similar reasons there is a tendency to call the word sceptic, septic. Theoretical propriety (and, be it observed, the analogy of ascetic has not been overlooked) is in {177} favour of the word being sounded skeptic. The tendency of language, however, is the other way. Now, the tendency of language and the theoretical propriety being equal, there is an advantage (a point of utility) in saying skeptic, which turns the scale. By sounding the k we distinguish the word skeptic from septic. By this the language gains a point in perspicuity, so that we can talk of the anti-skeptic writings of Bishop Warburton and of the anti-septic properties of charcoal.

III. The tendencies of language.--From p. 153, we see that the combination ew is an unstable combination, that it has a tendency to become yoo, and that the y in yoo has a tendency to change a d preceding into j; in other words, we see the reason why, by many persons, dew is pronounced jew.

It is generally an easier matter to say how a word will be sounded a hundred years hence, than to determine its present pronunciation. Theoretical propriety is in favour of dew, so also is the view in the way of utility. Notwithstanding this, posterity will say jew, for the tendencies of language are paramount to all other influences.

We may now judge of the relative value of the three lines of criticism exhibited above. Other things being equal, the language should have the advantage of the doubt, and the utility of a given pronunciation should prevail over its theoretical propriety. Where, however, the tendencies are overwhelming, we can only choose whether, in doubtful words, we shall speak like our ancestors, or like our posterity.[35]

* * * * *

{178}

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

IX. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF ORTHOGRAPHY

s. 247. Orthoepy determines the correct pronunciation of words, and deals with a language as it is spoken; orthography determines the correct spelling of words, and deals with a language as it is written. The term is derived from the Greek words orthos (upright), and graph['e], or grafae (writing). Orthography is less essential to language than orthoepy; since all languages are spoken, whilst but a few languages are written. Orthography presupposes orthoepy. Orthography addresses itself to the eye, orthoepy to the ear. Orthoepy deals with the articulate sounds that constitute syllables and words; orthography treats of the signs by which such articulate sounds are expressed in writing. A letter is the sign of an articulate (and, in the case of h, of an inarticulate) sound.

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

s. 248. First, in respect to a full and perfect alphabet. Let there be in a certain language, simple single articulate sounds, to the number of forty, whilst the simple single signs, or letters, expressive of them, amount to no more than thirty. In this case the alphabet is insufficient. It is not full enough: since ten of the simple single articulate sounds have no corresponding signs whereby they may be expressed. In our own language, the sounds (amongst others) of th in thin, and of th in thine, are simple and single, whilst there is no sign equally simple and single to spell them with.

An alphabet, however, may be sufficient, and yet imperfect. It may err on the score of inconsistency. Let there be in a {179} given language two simple single sounds, for instance, the p in pate, and the f in fate. Let these sounds stand in a given relation to each other. Let a given sign, for instance, [Hebrew: P] (as is actually the case in Hebrew), stand for the p in pate; and let a second sign be required for the f in fate. Concerning the nature of this latter sign, two views may be taken. One framer of the alphabet, perceiving that the two sounds are mere modifications of each other, may argue that no new sign (or letter) is at all necessary, but that the sound of f in fate may be expressed by a mere modification of the sign (or letter) [Hebrew: P], and may be written thus [Hebrew: P], or thus [Hebrew: P]' or [Hebrew: P]', &c.; upon the principle that, like sounds should be expressed by like signs. The other framer of the alphabet, contemplating the difference between the two sounds, rather than the likeness, may propose, not a mere modification of the sign [Hebrew: P], but a letter altogether new, such as f, or [phi], &c., upon the principle that sounds of a given degree of dissimilitude should be expressed by signs of a different degree of dissimilitude.

Hitherto the expression of the sounds in point is a matter of convenience only. No question has been raised as to its consistency or inconsistency. This begins under conditions like the following:--Let there be in the language in point the sounds of the t in tin, and of the th in thin; which (it may be remembered) are precisely in the same relation to each other as the p in pate and the f in fate. Let each of these sounds have a sign (or letter) expressive of it. Upon the nature of these signs, or letters, will depend the nature of the sign or letter required for the f in fate. If the letter expressing the th in thin be a mere modification of the letter expressing the t in tin, then must the letter expressive of the f in fate be a mere modification of the letter expressing the p in pate, and vice vers[^a]. If this be not the case, the alphabet is inconsistent.

In the English alphabet we have (amongst others) the following inconsistency:--The sound of the f in fate, in a certain relation to the sound of the p in pate, is expressed by a totally distinct sign; whereas, the sound of the th in thin (similarly related to the t in tin) is expressed by no new sign, but by a mere modification of t; viz., th. {180}

A third element in the faultiness of an alphabet is the fault of erroneous representation. The best illustration of this we get from the Hebrew alphabet, where the sounds of [Hebrew: T] and [Hebrew: T`], mere varieties of each other, are represented by distinct and dissimilar signs, whilst [Hebrew: T] and [Hebrew: T], sounds specifically distinct, are expressed by a mere modification of the same sign, or letter.

s. 249. The right application of an alphabet.--An alphabet may be both sufficient and consistent, accurate in its representation of the alliances between articulate sounds, and in nowise redundant; and yet, withal, it may be so wrongly applied as to be defective. Of defect in the use or application of the letters of an alphabet, the three main causes are the following:--

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

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

The sound of the c, in city, is the sound that we naturally spell with the letter s, and if the expression of this sound was the only object of our orthographists, the word would be spelt accordingly (sity). The following facts, however, traverse {181} this simple view of the matter. The word is a derived word; it is transplanted into our own language from the Latin, where it is spelt with a c (civitas); and to change this c into s conceals the origin and history of the word. For this reason the c is retained, although, as far as the mere expression of sounds (the primary object in orthography) is concerned, the letter is a superfluity. In cases like the one adduced the orthography is bent to a secondary end, and is traversed by the etymology.

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

s. 250. Difference between the change of a sound and the original false expression of a sound.--The letter u is a simple single sign. The sound of ow, in town, is a diphthongal, or a double, sound. Now, in Anglo-Saxon, the modern word town is spelt t['u]n. In this case one of two things must have taken place: either the word must have changed its sound, or the Anglo-Saxons must have expressed it falsely and improperly.

s. 251. From the foregoing sections we arrive at the theory of a full and perfect alphabet and orthography, of which a few (amongst many others) of the chief conditions are as follow:--

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

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

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

4. That no sign express more than one sound.

5. That the primary aim of orthography be to express the sounds of words, and not their histories. {182}

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

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

s. 252. Previous to considering the sufficiency or insufficiency of the English alphabet, it is necessary to enumerate the elementary articulate sounds of the language. The enumeration of these is, strictly speaking, a point, not of orthography, but of orthoepy. It is, however, so intimately connected with the former that the present chapter seems its proper place. The vowels belonging to the English language are the twelve following:--

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

For the relations of these see Chapter II.

The diphthongal sounds are four.

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

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

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

1. w as in wet. | 13. th -- thin. 2. y -- yet. | 14. th -- thine. 3. m -- man. | 15. g -- gun. 4. n -- not. | 16. k -- kind. 5. l -- let. | 17. s -- sin. 6. r -- run. | 18. z -- zeal. 7. p -- pate. | 19. sh -- shine. {183} 8. b -- ban. | 20. z -- azure, glazier. 9. f -- fan. | 21. ch -- chest. 10. v -- van. | 22. j -- jest. 11. t -- tin. | 23. ng -- king. 12. d -- din. | 24. h -- hot.

Some writers would add to these the additional sound of the ['e] ferm['e] of the French; believing that the vowel in words like their and vein has a different sound from the vowel in words like there and vain. For my own part I cannot detect such a difference either in my own speech or that of my neighbours; although I am far from denying that in certain dialects of our language such may have been the case. The following is an extract from the Danish grammar for Englishmen, by Professor Rask, whose eye, in the matter in question, seems to have misled his ear: "The ['e] ferm['e], or close ['e], is very frequent in Danish, but scarcely perceptible in English; unless in such words as, their, vein, veil, which appear to sound a little different from there, vain, vale."

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

Now, although every sound specifically distinct should be expressed by a distinct sign, it does not follow that mere modifications or varieties (especially if they be within certain limits) should be so expressed. In the Greek language sounds as like as the o in not and the o in note are expressed by signs as unlike as [omicron] and [omega]; that is, by the letters omicron and omega respectively; and so it is with [epsilon] and [eta]. All that can be said in this case is, that it is the character of the Greek alphabet to represent a difference which the English neglects.

With respect to the diphthongs it is incorrect, uncommon, and inconvenient to represent them by simple single signs, rather than by combinations. In the English language the sounds {184} of ou, ew, and oi, are properly spelt with two letters. Not so, however, of i in bite.

The compound sibilants may also be expressed not by single signs, but by the combinations tsh and dzh; although, for certain reasons, such a mode of spelling is inconvenient. With these views we may appreciate,

I. The insufficiency of the English alphabet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The th in thin and the th in thine are dealt with as one {185} and the same sound; whereas they are sounds specifically distinct.

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

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

Q is superfluous, cw or kw being its equivalent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compared with the languages of the rest of the world the use of many letters in the English alphabet is singular. The letter i (when long or independent) is, with the exception of England, generally sounded as ee. With Englishmen it has a diphthongal power. The inconvenience of this is the necessity that it imposes upon us, in studying foreign languages, of {186} unlearning the sound which we give it in our own, and of learning the sound which it bears in the language studied. So it is (amongst many others) with the letter j. In English this has the sound of dzh, in French of zh, and in German of y. From singularity in the use of letters arises inconvenience in the study of foreign tongues.

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

With these views we may appreciate, of the English alphabet and orthography,

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

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

The sound given to the i in bite is singular. Other nations sound it as ee in feet.

The sound given to the oo in fool is singular. Other nations sound it as the o in note, or as the ['o] chiuso.

The sound given to the u in duck is singular. Other nations sound it as the u in bull.

The sound given to the ou in house is singular. Other nations, more correctly, represent it by au or aw.

The sound given to the w in wet is somewhat singular, but is also correct and convenient. With many nations it is not found at all, whilst with those where it occurs it has the sound (there or thereabouts) of v.

The sound given to y is somewhat singular. In Danish it has a vowel power. In German the semivowel sound is spelt with j.

The sound given to z is not the sound which it has in German and Italian; but its power in English is convenient and correct.

The sound given to ch in chest is singular. In other languages it has generally a guttural sound; in French that of {187} sh. The English usage is more correct than the French, but less correct than the German.

The sound given to j (as said before) is singular.

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

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

The use of j for dzh is historically incorrect.

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

In remodelling alphabets the question of historical propriety should be recognized. Other reasons for the use of a particular letter in a particular sense being equal, the historical propriety should decide the question. The above examples are illustrative, not exhaustive.

s. 253. On certain conventional modes of spelling.--In the Greek language the sounds of o in not and of o in note (although allied) are expressed by the unlike signs or letters [omicron] and [omega], respectively. In most other languages the difference between the sounds is considered too slight to require for its expression signs so distinct and dissimilar. In some languages the difference is neglected altogether. In many, however, it is expressed, and that by some modification of the original letter.

Let the sign (-) denote that the vowel over which it stands is long, or independent, whilst the sign (U) indicates shortness, or dependence. In such a case, instead of writing not and n[omega]t, like the Greeks, we may write n[)o]t and n[=o]t, the sign serving for a fresh letter. Herein the expression of the nature of the sound is natural, because the natural use of (-) and (U) is to express length or shortness, dependence or independence. Now, supposing the broad sound of o {188} to be already represented, it is very evident that, of the other two sounds of o, the one must be long (independent), and the other short (dependent); and as it is only necessary to express one of these conditions, we may, if we choose, use the sign (-) alone; its presence denoting length, and its absence shortness (independence or dependence).

As signs of this kind, one mark is as good as another; and instead of (-) we may, if we choose, substitute such a mark as (') (and write n['o]t=n[=o]t=n[omega]t=n[=o]te); provided only that the sign (') expresses no other condition or affection of a sound. This use of the mark ('), viz. as a sign that the vowel over which it is placed is long (independent), is common in many languages. But is this use of (') natural? For a reason that the reader has anticipated, it is not natural, but conventional. It is used elsewhere not as the sign of quantity, but as the sign of accent; consequently, being placed over a letter, and being interpreted according to its natural meaning, it gives the idea, not that the syllable is long, but that it is emphatic or accented. Its use as a sign of quantity is an orthographical expedient, or a conventional mode of spelling.

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

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

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

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

The reduplication of the consonant after a vowel, as in spotted, torrent, is in most cases but an orthographical expedient. It merely denotes that the preceding vowel is short (dependent). {189}

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

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

X, however, and q are not orthographical expedients. They are orthographical compendiums.

The above instances have been adduced as illustrations only. Further details will be found hereafter. For many of them we can give a reason (for instance, for the reduplication of a consonant to express the shortness of the preceding vowel), and of many of them we can give an historical account (see Chapter X.).

s. 254. The mischief of orthographical expedients is this:--When a sign, or letter, is used in a conventional, it precludes us from using it (at least without further explanation) in its natural sense: e.g., the double o in mood constitutes but one syllable. If in a foreign language we had, immediately succeeding each other, first the syllable mo, and next the syllable od, we should have to spell it mo-od, or moeod or mo-[o-hook]d, &c. Again, it is only by our knowledge of the language that the th in nuthook, is not pronounced like the th in burthen. In the languages of India the true sound of t + h is common. This, however, we cannot spell naturally because the combination th conveys to us another notion. Hence such combinations as thh, or t`, &c., in writing Hindoo words.

A second mischief of orthographical conventionalities, is the wrong notions that they engender, the eye misleading the ear. That th is really t + h, no one would have believed had it not been for the spelling.

s. 255. The present section is the partial application of the preceding observations. It is a running commentary upon the orthographical part of Dr. Johnson's Grammar. Presuming a knowledge of the detail of the English orthography, it attempts an explanation of some of its leading characters. Many of these it possesses in common with other tongues. Several are peculiar to itself. {190}

"A, sounded as aw, or as a modification of o."--A, as in father, and o, as in note (as may be seen in p. 150), form the extremities of the vowel system. Notwithstanding this, the two sounds often interchange. The orthographical systems of most languages bear witness to this. In French the au in autel has the sound of o; in Danish aa=o (baade being pronounced bohde); in Swedish [oa] has the same power. In Old English the forms hond, strond, &c., occur, instead of hand, strand, &c. In Anglo-Saxon, br['a]d, st['a]n, &c., correspond to the English forms broad, stone. I am not able to say whether a changes oftenest to o, or o to a. The form hond is older than the form hand. In the word salt, however, the a was pronounced as the a in fat before it was pronounced (as at present) like the o in not. If this were not the case it would never have been spelt with an a. In the words launch and haunch, by some called lanch, hanch, and by others lawnch, hawnch, we find a present tendency to interchange these sounds.

The change from a to o takes place most especially before the liquid l, wall, call, fall. When the liquid l is followed by another consonant, it (viz. l) is generally sunk in pronunciation, falcon, salmon, &c., pronounced faucon, sammon, or saumon. The reason of this lies in the following fact, viz., that syllables wherein there are, at the same time, two final consonants and a long vowel, have a tendency to become shortened by one of two processes, viz., either by ejecting one of the consonants, or by shortening the vowel. That the l in falcon is affected not by the change of a to o, but by the change of a short vowel to a long, or of a slender one to a broad one, is shown in the tendency which the common people have to say hode for hold, as well as by the Scotch form gowd for gold. This fact bears upon the difficult problem in the Greek (and in other languages), viz., whether the lengthening of the vowel in words like [Greek: odous] (compared with [Greek: odontos]), is the cause or the effect of the rejection of the consonant.

"E is long, as in scene; or short, as in cellar."'--Johnson. It has been stated before that the (so-called) long sound of e is non-existent, and the e in scene, is the (so-called) long sound of the i in pit. {191}

For the power of e in since and once, see the remarks on s.

For the power of e in hedge and oblige, see the remarks on g.

The power of e mute in words like cane, bane, tune, robe, pope, fire, cure, tube, has already been noticed. It serves to denote the length of the preceding vowel. For this purpose it is retained; but it was not for this purpose that it was invented. Originally it expressed a sound, and it is only by a change of language that it has come, as it were by accident, to be an orthographical expedient.

Let a word consist of two syllables. Let the latter end in a vowel. Let there be between the vowel of the first and the vowel of the second syllable, one consonant and no more, e. g., namae. Let the consonant belong to the root of the word; and let the first syllable of the word be the essential and the radical part of it. Let this same syllable (as the essential and radical part of it) have an accent. The chances are that, under such circumstances, the vowel of the first syllable will be long (independent), just as the chances are that a vowel followed by two consonants will be short. Let a change in language affect the final vowel, so that a word which was originally pronounced nama, should become, first, name, and afterwards n[=a]m, naim, or naem; the vowel being sounded as the a in fate. Let the final e, although lost in pronunciation, be retained in the spelling. The chances are that, the above conditions being given, such an e (final and mute) shall, whenever it occurs, occur at the end of a long syllable. The next process is for a succeeding generation to mistake a coincidence for a sign, and to imagine that an e mute expresses the length of syllable.

I consider this to be the key to the use of the e mute in all words where it is preceded by one consonant only.

From the circumstance that the French and the English are the only nations wherein the e mute is part and parcel of the orthography, it has been hastily imagined that the employment of it is to be attributed to the Norman Conquest. The truth, however, is, that we find it equally in words of Saxon and of Norman origin.

The fact that, in certain words, an e mute is preceded by {192} two consonants and by a short vowel, does not militate against the view given above.

"I has a sound, long, as in fine, and short, as in fin. That is eminently observable in i, which may be likewise remarked in other letters, that the short sound is not the long sound contracted, but a sound wholly different."--Johnson. This extract has been made in order to add the authority of Johnson to the statement so often repeated already; viz., that the i in bite is not the long sound of the i in bit.

For the sound of u in guest, prorogue, guard, see the remarks on g.

As a vowel, y is wholly superfluous. It is a current remark that more words end in y (fortify, pretty) than in any other letter. This is true only in respect to their spelling. As a matter of speech, the y final has always the sound either of the ee in feet, or of the i in bite. Such is the case with the words fortify and pretty, quoted above. For some reason or other, the vowel e is never, in English, written at the end of words, unless when it is mute; whilst i is never written at all. Instead of cri, we write cry, &c. This is a peculiarity of our orthography, for which I have no satisfactory reason. It may be, that with words ending in e, y is written for the sake of showing that the vowel is not mute, but sounded. Again, the adjectives ending in y as any, and the adverbs in ly, as manly, in the older stages of our language ended, not in y, but in ig (manlig, aenig); so that the present y, in such words, may be less the equivalent of i than the compendium of ig. I venture this indication with no particular confidence.

The b in debtor, subtile, doubt, agrees with the b in lamb, limb, dumb, thumb, womb, in being mute. It differs, however, in another respect. The words debtor, subtle, doubt, are of classical, the words lamb, limb, dumb, &c., are of Saxon, origin. In debtor, &c., the b was, undoubtedly, at one time, pronounced, since it belonged to a different syllable; debitor, subtilis, dubito, being the original forms. I am far from being certain that with the other words, lamb, &c., this was the case. With them the b belonged (if it belonged to the word at all) to the same syllable as the m. I think, {193} however, that instead of this being the case, the b, in speech, never made a part of the word at all; that it belongs now, and that it always belonged, to the written language only; and that it was inserted in the spelling upon what may be called the principle of imitation. For a further illustration of this, see the remarks on the word could.

"Ch has a sound which is analysed into tsh, as church, chin, crutch. C might be omitted in the language without loss, since one of its sounds might be supplied by s, and the other by k, but that it preserves to the eye the etymology of words, as face from facies, captive from captivus"--Johnson.

Before a, o, u (that is, before a full vowel), c is sounded as k; before e, i, and y (that is, before a small vowel), it has the power of s. This change of sound according to the nature of the vowel following, is so far from being the peculiarity of the English, that it is common in all languages; except that sometimes c, instead of becoming s, becomes ts, tsh, ksh, in other words, some other sibilant; but always a sibilant. A reference to p. 153 will explain this change. At a certain time, k (written c, as is the case in Latin) becomes changed by the vowel following into ksh, and from thence into s, ts, or tsh. That the syllables cit, cyt, cet, were at one time pronounced kit, kyt, ket, we believe: 1. from the circumstance that if it were not so, they would have been spelt with an s; 2. from the comparison of the Greek and Latin languages, where the words cete, circus, cystis, Latin, are [Greek: kete, kirkos], [Greek: kustis], Greek.

In the words mechanical, choler, &c., derived from the Greek, it must not be imagined that the c represents the Greek kappa or [kappa]. The combination c + h is to be dealt with as a single letter. Thus it was that the Romans, who had in their language neither the sound of [chi], nor the sign [kappa], rendered the Greek chi ([chi]), just as by th they rendered [theta], and by ph, [phi].

The faulty representation of the Greek [chi] has given rise to a faulty representation of the Greek [kappa], as in ascetic, from [Greek: asketikos].

"C, according to the English orthography, never ends a {194} word; therefore we write stick, block, which were originally sticke, blocke. In such words c is now mute."--Johnson. Just as there was a prejudice against i or e ending a word there seems to have been one in the case of c. In the word Frederick there are three modes of spelling: 1. Frederic; 2. Frederik; 3. Frederick. Of these three it is the last only that seems, to an Englishman, natural. The form Frederic seems exceptionable, because the last letter is c, whilst Frederik is objected to because k comes in immediate contact with the short vowel.

Now the reason against c ending a word seems this. From what has been remarked above, c seems, in and of itself, to have no power at all. Whether it shall be sounded as k or as s seems undetermined, except by the nature of the vowel following. If the vowel following be small, c=s, if full, c=k. But c followed by nothing is equivocal and ambiguous. Now c final is c followed by nothing; and therefore c equivocal, ambiguous, indefinite, undetermined. This is the reason why c is never final. Let there be such words as sticke and blocke. Let the k be taken away. The words remain stice, bloce. The k being taken away, there is a danger of calling them stise, blose.

A verbal exception being taken, the statement of Dr. Johnson, that in words like stick and block the c is mute, is objectionable. The mute letter is not so much the c as the k.

"G at the end of a word is always hard, as ring, sing."--Johnson. A verbal exception may be taken here. Ng, is not a combination of the sounds of n+g, but the representation of a simple single sound; so that, as in the case of th and sh, the two letters must be dealt with as a single one.

"G before n is mute, as gnash, sign, foreign."--Johnson. The three words quoted above are not in the same predicament. In words like gnash the g has been silently dropped on the score of euphony (see remarks on k); in sign and foreign the g has not been dropped, but changed. It has taken the allied sound of the semivowel y, and so, with the preceding vowel, constitutes a diphthong. {195}

Before a, o, u (full vowels), g has the sound, as in gay, go, gun: before e, i, y, that of gem, giant.

At the end of a word (that is, followed by nothing at all), or followed by a consonant, it has the same sound that it has before a, o, u--agog, grand. This shows that such is its natural sound. In hedge and oblige the e mute serves to show that the g is to be pronounced as j.

Let there be the word r[)o]g. Let the vowel be lengthened. Let this lengthening be expressed by the addition of e mute, roge. There is now a risk of the word being called roje. This is avoided by inserting u, as in prorogue. Why, however, is it that the u runs no chance of being pronounced, and the word of being sounded prorogw['e]? The reason for this lies in three facts. 1. The affinities between the sounds of ga and ka. 2. The fact that qu is merely kw. 3. The fact that in qu, followed by another vowel, as in quoit (pronounced koyt), antique, &c., the u is altogether omitted in pronunciation. In other words, the analogy of qu is extended to gu.

For the varied sounds of gh in plough, tough, enough (enow), through, we must remember that the original sound of gh was a hard guttural, as is at present the case in Scotland, and between g, h, f, v, w, there are frequent interchanges.

"H is a note of aspiration."--It is under the notion that th, ph, sh, as in thin, thine, Philip, shine, are aspirated sounds, that h is admitted in the spelling. As has been repeatedly stated, th, ph, sh are to be treated as single signs or letters.

"J, consonant, sounds uniformly like the soft g (i.e., as in gem), and is, therefore, a letter useless, except in etymology, as ejaculation, jester, jocund, juice."--Johnson. It may be added that it never occurs in words of Saxon origin, and that in the single word Allelujah it has the sound of y, as in the German.

K never comes before a, o, u, or before a consonant. It is used before e, i, y, where c would, according to the English analogy, be liable to be sounded as s; as in kept, king, skirt. These words, if written cept, cing, scirt, would run the risk of being sounded sept, sing, sirt. Broadly speaking, k is never {196} used except where c would be inconvenient. The reason of this lies in the fact of there being no such letter as k in the Latin language. Hence arose in the eyes of the etymologist the propriety of retaining, in all words derived from the Latin (crown, concave, concupiscence, &c.), the letter c, to the exclusion of k. Besides this, the Anglo-Saxon alphabet, being taken from the Roman, excluded k, so that c was written even before the small vowels, a, e, i, y; as cyning, or cining, a king. C then supplants k upon etymological grounds only. In the languages derived from the Latin this dislike to the use of k leads to several orthographical inconveniences. As the tendency of c, before e, i, y, to be sounded as s (or as a sound allied to s), is the same in those languages as in others; and as in those languages, as in others, there frequently occur such sounds as kit, ket, kin, &c., a difficulty arises as to the spelling. If spelt cit, cet, &c., there is the risk of their being sounded sit, set. To remedy this, an h is interposed--chit, chet, &c. This, however, only substitutes one difficulty for another, since ch is, in all probability, already used with a different sound, e.g., that of sh, as in French, or that of k guttural, as in German. The Spanish orthography is thus hampered. Unwilling to spell the word chimera (pronounced kimera) with a k; unable to spell it with either c or ch, it writes the word quimaera. This distaste for k is an orthographical prejudice. Even in the way of etymology it is but partially advantageous, since in the other Gothic languages, where the alphabet is less rigidly Latin, the words that in English are spelt with a c, are there written with k,--kam, German; komme, Danish; skrapa, Swedish;=came, come, scrape.

The use of k final, as in stick, &c., has been noticed in p. 194.

"Skeptic, for so it should be written, not sceptic."--Johnson. Quoted for the sake of adding authority to the statement made in p. 193, viz., that the Greek kappa is to be represented not by c, but by k.

"K is never doubled, but c is used before it to shorten the vowel by a double consonant, as c[)o]ckle, p[)i]ckle."--Johnson. {197} This is referable to the statement that k is never used where c is admissible.

"K is used before n, knell, knot, but totally loses its sound."--Johnson. This, however, is not the ease in the allied languages; in German and Danish, in words like knecht, knive, the k is sounded. This teaches us that such was once the case in English. Hence we learn that in the words knife, knight (and also in gnaw, gnash), we have an antiquated or obsolete orthography.

For the ejection of the sound of l in calf, salmon, falcon, &c. see under a. For the l in could, see that word.

"N is sometimes mute after m, as damn, condemn, hymn."--Johnson. In all these words the n originally belonged to a succeeding syllable, dam-no, condem-no, hym-nus.

Q, accurately speaking, is neither a letter, nor an abbreviation. It is always followed by u, as queen, quilt, and the two letters qu must be looked upon as a single sign, equivalent to (but scarcely an abbreviation) of kw. Q is not=k alone. The combination qu, is never sounded koo. Neither is kw. If it were so, there would be in the word queen (currently speaking) three sounds of u, viz., two belonging to q (=kw), and one belonging to u itself. W being considered as=2 u: q=k + 1/2 w. This view of q bears upon the theory of words like prorogue, &c.

The reader is referred to p. 152. There he is told that, when a word ends in a flat consonant, b, v, d, g, the plural termination is not the sound of s, but that of z (stagz, dogz); although s be the letter written. Such also is the case with words ending in the vowels or the liquids (peaz, beanz, hillz, not peace, beance, hillce). This fact influences our orthography. The majority of words ending in s are found to be plural numbers, or else (what is the same thing in respect to form) either genitive cases, or verbs of the third person singular; whilst in the majority of these the s is sounded as z. Hence, the inference from analogy that s single, at the end of words, is sounded as z. Now this fact hampers the orthography of those words wherein s final retains its natural sound, as since, once, mass, mace; for let these be {198} written sins, ons, mas, the chances are that they will be pronounced sinz, onz, maz. To remedy this, the s may be doubled, as in mass. This, however, can be done in a few cases only. It cannot be done conveniently where the vowel is long, the effect of a double consonant being to denote that the preceding vowel is short. Neither can it be done conveniently after a consonant, such combinations as sinss, &c., being unsightly. This throws the grammarian upon the use of c, which, as stated above, has, in certain situations, the power of s. To write, however, simply sinc, or onc, would induce the risk of the words being sounded sink, onk. To obviate this, e is added, which has the double effect of not requiring to be sounded (being mute), and of showing that the c has the sound of s (being small).

"It is the peculiar quality of s that it may be sounded before all consonants, except x and z, in which s is comprised, x being only ks, and z only a hard [flat] or gross s. This s is therefore termed by grammarians suae potestatis litera, the reason of which the learned Dr. Clarke erroneously supposed to be, that in some words it might be doubled at pleasure."--Johnson. A reference to the current Greek Grammars will indicate another reason for [sigma] being called suae potestatis litera. It will there be seen that, whilst [pi], [beta], [phi]--[kappa], [gamma], [chi]--[tau], [delta], [theta]--are grouped together, as tenues, mediae, and aspiratae, and as inter se cognatae, [sigma] stands by itself; [zeta] its media (flat sound) being treated as a double letter, and sh, its so-called aspirate, being non-existent in the Greek language.

The sound of ti before a vowel, as in salvation, is explained in p. 153.

"Th has two sounds; the one soft [flat], as thus, whether; the other hard [sharp], as thing, think. The sound is soft [flat] in all words between two vowels, as father, whether; and between r and a vowel, as burthen."--Johnson. The reason of the latter statement lies in the fact of both the vowels and r being flat (see p. 152), and so exerting a flattening influence upon the sounds in contact with them.

In the substantives breath and cloth, the th is sharp (i.e., as th in thin); in the verbs breathe and clothe, the th is flat (i.e., {199} as th in thine).--A great number of substantives may be made verbs by changing the sound of their final consonant. However, with the words breathe and clothe, a second change has taken place, viz., the vowel has been lengthened. Now of these two changes, viz., the lengthening of the vowel, and the flattening of the consonant, which is the one represented by the e mute, in clothe and breathe, as compared with cloth and breath? I imagine the former. Hence an exception is taken to the following statement of Dr. Johnson:--"When it (th) is softened [flattened] at the end of a word, an e silent must be added, as breath, breathe, cloth, clothe."

The sounds of the s in sure, of the t in picture (when pronounced pictshure), and of the z in azure and glazier, are explained in p. 153.

The present chapter is intended not to exhaust the list, but to illustrate the character of those orthographical expedients which insufficient alphabets, changes in language, and the influences of etymology engender both in the English and in other tongues.

* * * * *

{200}

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

X. HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE ENGLISH ALPHABET

s. 256. The preceding chapter has exhibited the theory of a full and perfect alphabet; it has shown how far the English alphabet falls short of such a standard; and, above all, it has exhibited the various conventional modes of spelling which the insufficiency of alphabets, combined with other causes, has engendered. The present chapter gives a history of our alphabet, whereby many of its defects are accounted for. These defects, it may be said, once for all, the English alphabet shares with those of the rest of the world; although, with the doubtful exception of the French, it possesses them in a higher degree than any.

With few, if any, exceptions, all the modes of writing in the world originate, directly or indirectly, from the Phoenician, Hebrew, or Semitic alphabet. This is easily accounted for when we call to mind,--1. The fact that the Greek, the Latin, and the Arabian alphabets, are all founded upon this; and, 2. The great influence of the nations speaking those three languages. The present sketch, however, is given only for the sake of accounting for defects.

s. 257. Phoenician, Hebrew, or Semitic Period.--At a certain period the alphabet of Palestine, Phoenicia, and the neighbouring languages of the Semitic tribes, consisted of twenty-two separate and distinct letters. For these see the Hebrew Grammars and the Phoenicia of Gesenius.

The chances are, that, let a language possess as few elementary articulate sounds as possible, an alphabet of only twenty-two letters will be insufficient. Now, in the particular case of the languages in point, the number of elementary sounds, as we infer from the present Arabic, was above the average. {201} It may safely be asserted, that the original Semitic alphabet was insufficient for even the Semitic languages.

It was, moreover, inconsistent: since sounds as like as those of teth and tau (mere variations of each other) were expressed by signs as unlike as [Hebrew: T`] and [Hebrew: T]; whilst sounds as unlike as those of beth with a point, and beth without a point (b and v), were expressed (if expressed at all) by signs as like as [Hebrew: B] and [Hebrew: B].

In this state it was imported into Greece. Now, as it rarely happens that any two languages have precisely the same elementary articulate sounds, so it rarely happens that an alphabet can be transplanted from one tongue to another, and be found, at once, to coincide.

The Greeks had, in all probability, sounds which were wanting in Palestine and Phoenicia. In Palestine and Phoenicia it is certain that there were sounds wanting in Greece.

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

s. 258. Greek Period.--Compared with the Semitic, the Old Greek alphabet ran thus:--

Hebrew. Greek. | Hebrew. Greek. | 1. [Alef] [Alpha]. | 13. [Mem] [Mu]. 2. [Bet] [Beta]. | 14. [Nun] [Nu]. 3. [Gimel] [Gamma]. | 15. [Samekh] [Sigma]? 4. [Dalet] [Delta]. | 16. [Ayin] [Omicron]. 5. [He] [Epsilon]. | 17. [Pe] [Pi]. 6. [Vav] [Digamma]. | 18. [Tsadi] -- 7. [Zayin] [Zeta]. | A letter called 8. [Khet] [Eta]. | 19. [Kuf] koppa, afterwards 9. [Tet] [Theta]. | ejected. 10. [Yod] [Iota]. | 20. [Resh] [Rho]. 11. [Kaf] [Kappa]. | 21. [Shin] [San] afterwards [Sigma]? 12. [Lamed] [Lambda]. | 22. [Tav] [Tau].

Such the order and form of the Greek and Hebrew letters. Here it may be remarked, that, of each alphabet, it is only the modern forms that are compared; the likeness in the shape of the letters may be seen by comparing them in their {202} older stages. Of these the exhibition, in a work like the present, is inconvenient. They may, however, be studied in the work already referred to in the Phoenicia of Gesenius. The names of the letters are as follows:--

Hebrew. Greek. | Hebrew. Greek. | 1. Aleph Alpha. | 12. Lamed Lambda. 2. Beth Baeta. | 13. Mem Mu. 3. Gimel Gamma. | 14. Nun Nu. 4. Daleth Delta. | 15. Samech Sigma? 5. He E, psilon | 16. Ayn O. 6. Vaw Digamma. | 17. Pi Pi. 7. Zayn Zaeta. | 18. Tsadi ---- 8. Heth Haeta. | 19. Kof Koppa, Archaic. 9. Teth Thaeta. | 20. Resh Rho. 10. Yod I[^o]ta. | 21. Sin San, Doric. 11. Kaph Kappa. | 22. Tau Tau.

s. 259. The Asiatic alphabet of Phoenicia and Palestine is now adapted to the European language of Greece. The first change took place in the manner of writing. The Orientals wrote from right to left; the Greeks from left to right. Besides this, the following principles, applicable whenever the alphabet of one language is transferred to another, were recognised:--

1. Letters for which there was no use were left behind. This was the case, as seen above, with the eighteenth letter, tsadi.

2. Letters expressive of sounds for which there was no precise equivalent in Greek, were used with other powers. This was the case with letters 5, 8, 16, and probably with some others.

3. Letters of which the original sound, in the course of time, became changed, were allowed, as it were, to drop out of the alphabet. This was the case with 6 and 19.

4. For such simple single elementary articulate sounds as there was no sign or letter representant, new signs, or letters, were invented. This principle gave to the Greek alphabet the new signs [phi], [chi], [upsilon], [omega].

5. The new signs were not mere modifications of the older {203} ones (as was the case with [Hebrew: P], [Hebrew: P], [Hebrew: B], [Hebrew: B], &c. in Hebrew), but new, distinct, and independent letters.

In all this there was an improvement. The faults of the newer Greek alphabet consisted in the admission of the compendium [psi]=ps, and the retention of the fifteenth letter (samech, xi), with the power of ks, it being also a compendium.

s. 260. The Italian or old Latin period.--That it was either from the original Phoenician, or from the old Greek, that the Italian alphabets were imported, we learn from the existence in them of the letters f and q, corresponding respectively to the sixth and nineteenth letters; these having, in the second stage of the Greek alphabet, been ejected.

s. 261. The first alphabet imported into Italy was the Etruscan. In this the [beta], [delta], and [omicron] were ejected, their sounds (as it is stated) not being found in the Etruscan language. Be it observed, that the sounds both of [beta] and [delta] are flat. Just as in the Devonshire dialect the flat sounds (z, v, &c.) have the preponderance, so, in the Etruscan, does there seem to have been a preponderating quantity of the sharp sounds. This prepares us for a change, the effects whereof exist in almost all the alphabets of Europe. In Greek and Hebrew the third letter (gimel, gamma) had the power of the flat mute g, as in gun. In the Etruscan it had the power of k. In this use of the third letter the Romans followed the Etruscans: but, as they had also in their language the sound of g (as in gun), they used, up to the Second Punic War, the third letter (viz. c), to denote both sounds. In the Duillian column we have MACESTRATOS, CARTHACINIENSES.[36] Afterwards, however, the separate sign (or letter) g was invented, being originally a mere modification of c. The place of g in the alphabet is involved in the history of z.

s. 262. The Roman alphabet had a double origin. For the first two centuries after the foundation of the city the alphabet used was the Etruscan, derived directly from the Greek, and from the old Greek. This accounts for the presence of f and q.

{204}

Afterwards, however, the Romans modified their alphabet by the alphabet of the Italian Greeks; these Italian Greeks using the late Greek alphabet. This accounts for the presence of v, originating in the Greek ypsilon.

In accommodating the Greek alphabet to their own language, the Latins recognised the following principles:--

I. The ejection of such letters as were not wanted. Thus it was that the seventh letter (zayn, zaeta) was thrown out of the alphabet, and the new letter, g, put in its place. Subsequently, z was restored for the sake of spelling Greek words, but was placed at the end of the alphabet. Thus also it was, that thaeta, kappa (c being equivalent to k), and the fifteenth letter, were ejected, while [psi] and [chi] were never admitted. In after-times the fifteenth letter (now xi) was restored, for the same reason that z was restored, and, like z, was placed at the end of the alphabet.

II. The use of the imported letters with a new power. Hence the sixth letter took the sound, not of v or w, but of f; and the eighth of h.

Beyond this the Romans made but slight alterations. In ejecting kappa, thaeta and chi, they did mischief. The same in changing the power of c. The representation of [phi] by ph, and of [theta] by th was highly erroneous. The retention of x and q was unnecessary. V and j, two letters whereby the alphabet was really enriched, were mere modifications of u and i respectively. Y also seems a modification of v.

Neither the Latin, Greek, nor Hebrew orthographies were much warped to etymological purposes.

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

It may now be seen that with a language containing such sounds as the th in thin and thine, and the ch in the German auch, it is to their advantage to derive their alphabet from the Greek; whilst, with a language containing such sounds as h and v, it is to their advantage to derive it from the Latin.

It may also be seen, that, without due alterations and {205} additions, the alphabet of one country will not serve as the alphabet of another.

s. 263. The Moeso-Gothic alphabet.--In the third century the classical alphabets were applied to a Gothic language. I use the word alphabets because the Moeso-Gothic letters borrowed from both the Latin and the Greek. Their form and order may be seen in Hickes' Thesaurus and in Lye's Grammar. With the Greek they agree in the following particulars.

1. In the sound of the third letter being not that of [kappa] (c), but of the g in gun.

2. In retaining kappa and chi.

3. In expressing the simple single sound of th by a simple single sign. This sign, however, has neither the shape nor alphabetical position of the Greek thaeta.

With the Latin they agree, 1. in possessing letters equivalent to f, g, h, q, y.

2. In placing z at the end of the alphabet.

The Moeso-Gothic alphabet seems to have been formed on eclectic principles, and on principles sufficiently bold. Neither was its application traversed by etymological views. I cannot trace its influence, except, perhaps, in the case of the Anglo-Saxon letters th and [wynn], upon any other alphabet; nor does it seem to have been acted upon by any earlier Gothic alphabet.

s. 264. The Anglo-Saxon alphabet.--What sort of an alphabet the Gothic languages possess we know: what sort of alphabet they require, we can determine. For the following sounds (amongst others) current in the Gothic, either one or both of the classical languages are deficient in corresponding signs.

1. The th in thin.--A sign in Greek ([theta]), but none in Latin.

2. The th in thine.--A sign neither in Greek nor Latin.

3. The ch in the German auch.--A sign in Greek ([chi]), but none in Latin.

4. The flat sound of the same, or the probable sound of the h in thurh, leoht, &c., Anglo-Saxon.--A sign neither in Greek nor Latin. {206}

5. The sh in shine.--A sign neither in Greek nor Latin.

6. The z in azure.--A sign neither in Greek nor Latin.

7. The ch in chest.--A sign neither in Greek nor Latin, unless we suppose that at the time when the Anglo-Saxon alphabet was formed, the Latin c in words like civitas had the power, which it has in the present Italian, of ch.

8. The j in jest.--A sign neither in Greek nor Latin, unless we admit the same supposition in respect to g, that has been indicated in respect to c.

9. The sound of the kj; in the Norwegian kjenner; viz., that (thereabouts) of ksh.--A sign neither in Latin nor Greek.

10. The English sound of w.--A sign neither in Latin nor Greek.

11. The sound of the German ue, Danish y.--No sign in Latin; probably one in Greek, viz., [upsilon].

12. Signs for distinguishing the long and short vowels, as [epsilon] and [eta], [omicron] and [omega].--Wanting in Latin, but existing in Greek.

In all these points the classical alphabets (one or both) were deficient. To make up for their insufficiency one of two things was necessary, either to coin new letters, or to use conventional combinations of the old.

In the Anglo-Saxon alphabet (derived from the Latin) we have the following features:--

1. C used to the exclusion of k.

2. The absence of the letter j, either with the power of y, as in German, of zh, as in French, or of dzh, as in English.

3. The absence of q; a useful omission, cw serving instead.

4. The absence of v; u, either single or double, being used instead.

5. The use of y as a vowel, and of e as y.

6. The absence of z.

7. Use of uu, as w, or v: Old Saxon.

8. The use, in certain conditions, of f for v.

9. The presence of the simple single signs th and dh, for the th in thin, and the th in thine.

Of the Anglo-Saxon alphabet we may safely say that it was insufficient. The points wherein the Latin alphabet was {207} improved in its adaptation to the Gothic tongues, are, 1. the admission of th and dh; 2. the evolution of w out of u. Upon this latter circumstance, and on k and z, I make the following extract from the Latin Dedication of Otfrid's Krist:--"Hujus enim linguae barbaries, ut est inculta et indisciplinabilis, atque insueta capi regulari freno grammaticae artis, sic etiam in multis dictis scriptu est difficilis propter literarum aut congeriem, aut incognitam sonoritatem. Nam interdum tria u u u ut puto quaerit in sono; priores duo consonantes, ut mihi videtur, tertium vocali sono manente," And, further, in respect to other orthographical difficulties:--"Interdum vero nec a, nec e, nec i, nec u, vocalium sonos praecanere potui, ibi y Grecum mihi videbatur ascribi. Et etiam hoc elementum lingua haec horrescit interdum; nulli se characteri aliquotiens in quodam sono nisi difficile jungens. K et z saepius haec lingua extra usum Latinitatis utitur; quae grammatici inter litteras dicunt esse superfluas. Ob stridorem autem dentium interdum ut puto in hac lingua z utuntur, k autem propter faucium sonoritatem."

s. 265. The Anglo-Norman Period.--Between the Latin alphabet, as applied to the Anglo-Saxon, and the Latin alphabet, as applied to the Norman-French, there are certain points of difference. In the first place, the sound-system of the languages (like the French) derived from the Latin, bore a greater resemblance to that of the Romans, than was to be found amongst the Gothic tongues. Secondly, the alphabets of the languages in point were more exclusively Latin. In the present French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese, there is an exclusion of the k. This is not the case with the Anglo-Norman. Like the Latins, the Anglo-Normans considered that the sound of the Greek [theta] was represented by th: not, however, having this sound in their language, there was no corresponding sign in their alphabet. The greatest mischief done by the Norman influence was the ejection from the English alphabet of th and dh. In other respects the alphabet was improved. The letters z, k, j, were either imported or more currently recognised. The letter y took a semi-vowel power, having been previously represented by e; {208} itself having the power of i. The mode of spelling the compound sibilant with ch was evolved. My notions concerning this mode of spelling are as follows:--At a given period the sound of ce in ceaster, originally that of ke, had become, first, that of ksh, and, secondly, that of tsh; still it was spelt ce, the e, in the eyes of the Anglo-Saxons, having the power of y. In the eyes also of the Anglo-Saxons the compound sound of ksh, or tsh, would differ from that of k by the addition of y: this, it may be said, was the Anglo-Saxon view of the matter. The Anglo-Norman view was different. Modified by the part that, in the combination th, was played by the aspirate h, it was conceived by the Anglo-Normans, that ksh, or tsh, differed from k, not by the addition of y (expressed by e), but by that of h. Hence the combination ch as sounded in chest. The same was the case with sh. This latter statement is a point in the history, not so much of an alphabet, as of an orthography.

The preceding sketch, as has been said more than once before, has been given with one view only, viz., that of accounting for defective modes of spelling. The history of almost all alphabets is the same. Originally either insufficient, erroneous, or inconsistent, they are transplanted from one language to a different, due alterations and additions rarely being made.

s. 266. The reduplication of the consonant following, to express the shortness (dependence) of the preceding vowel, is as old as the classical languages: terra, [Greek: thalassa]. The following extract from the Ormulum (written in the thirteenth century) is the fullest recognition of the practice that I have met with. The extract is from Thorpe's Analecta Anglo-Saxonica.

And whase wilenn shall this boc, Efft otherr sithe writenn, Himm bidde iec thatt hett write rihht, Swa sum thiss boc himm taechethth; All thwerrt utt affterr thatt itt iss Oppo thiss firrste bisne, Withth all swilc rime als her iss sett, Withth alse fele wordess:

{209} And tatt he loke wel thatt he An boc-staff write twiggess,[37] Eggwhaer thaer itt uppo thiss boc Iss writenn o thatt wise: Loke he well thatt hett write swa, Forr he ne magg noht elless, On Englissh writenn rihht te word, Thatt wite he wel to sothe.

Concerning the various other orthographical expedients, such as the reduplication of the vowel to express its length (mood), &c., I can give no satisfactory detailed history. The influence of the Anglo-Norman, a language derived from the Latin, established, in its fullest force, the recognition of the etymological principle.

s. 267. "I cannot trace the influence of the Moeso-Gothic alphabet, except, perhaps, in the case of the Anglo-Saxon letters th and [wynn], upon any other alphabet; nor does it seem to have been itself acted upon by any earlier Gothic alphabet." (See p. 205.) The reason for the remark in Italics was as follows: In the Icelandic language the word run signifies a letter, and the word runa a furrow, or line. It has also some secondary meanings, which it is unnecessary to give in detail. Upon a vast number of inscriptions, some upon rocks, some upon stones of a defined shape, we find an alphabet different (at least, apparently so) from that of the Greeks, Latins, and Hebrews, and also unlike that of any modern nation. In this alphabet there is a marked deficiency of curved or rounded lines, and an exclusive preponderance of straight ones. As it was engraved rather than written, this is what we naturally expect. These letters are called Runes, and the alphabet which they constitute is called the Runic alphabet. Sometimes, by an extension of meaning, the Old Norse language, wherein they most frequently occur, is called the Runic language. This is as incorrect as to call a language an alphabetic language. To say, however, the Runic stage of a language is neither inaccurate nor inconvenient. The Runic alphabet, whether borrowed or invented by the early Goths, is of greater antiquity {210} than either the oldest Teutonic or the Moeso-Gothic alphabets. The forms, names, and order of the letters may be seen in Hickes' Thesaurus, in Olai Wormii Literatura Runica, in Rask's Icelandic Grammar, and in W. Grimm's Deutsche Runer.

The original number of the Runic letters is sixteen; expressing the sounds of f, u, th, o, r, k, h, n, a, i, s, t, b, l, m, y. To these are added four spurious Runes, denoting c, x, ae, oe, and eight pointed Runes after the fashion of the pointed letters in Hebrew. In all this we see the influence of the imported alphabet upon the original Runes, rather than that of the original Runes upon the imported alphabet. It should, however, be remarked, that in the Runic alphabet the sound of th in thin is expressed by a simple sign, and that by a sign not unlike the Anglo-Saxon th.

s. 268. The Order of the Alphabet.--In the history of our alphabet, we have had the history of the changes in the arrangement, as well as of the changes in the number and power of its letters. The following question now presents itself: viz., Is there in the order of the letters any natural arrangement, or is the original as well as the present succession of letters arbitrary and accidental? In the year 1835 I conceived, that in the order of the Hebrew alphabet I had discovered a very artificial arrangement. I also imagined that this artificial arrangement had been detected by no one besides myself. Two years afterwards a friend[38] stated to me that he had made a similar observation, and in 1839 appeared, in Mr. Donaldson's New Cratylus, the quotation with which the present section will be concluded. The three views in the main coincide; and, as each has been formed independently (Mr. Donaldson's being the first recorded), they give the satisfactory result of three separate investigations coinciding in a theory essentially the same. The order of the Hebrew alphabet is as follows:--

Name. Sound.

1. Aleph Either a vowel or a breathing. 2. Beth B. 3. Gimel G. as in gun. {211} 4. Daleth D. 5. He Either a vowel or an aspirate. 6. Vaw V. 7. Zayn Z. 8. Kheth a variety of K. 9. Teth a variety of T. 10. Yod I. 11. Caph K. 12. Lamed L. 13. Mem M. 14. Nun N. 15. Samech a variety of S. 16. Ayn Either a vowel or--? 17. Pe P. 18. Tsadi TS. 19. Koph a variety of K. 20. Resh R. 21. Sin S. 22. Tau T.

Let beth, vaw, and pe (b, v, p) constitute a series called series P. Let gimel, kheth, and koph (g, kh, k`) constitute a series called series K. Let daleth, teth, and tau (d, t`, t) constitute a series called series T. Let aleph, he, and ayn constitute a series called the vowel series. Let the first four letters be taken in their order.

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

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

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

In this second sequence the relative positions of v, kh, and t` are the same in respect to each other, and the same in respect to the vowel series. The sequence itself is broken by the letter zayn, but it is remarkable that the principle of the sequence is the same. Series P follows the vowel, and series T is farthest from it. After this the system becomes but fragmentary. Still, even now, pe, of series P, follows ayn; tau, of {212} series D, is farthest from it; and koph, of series K, is intermediate. I am satisfied that we have in the Hebrew alphabet, and in all alphabets derived from it (consequently in the English), if not a system, the rudiments of a system, and that the system is of the sort indicated above; in other words, that the order of the alphabet is a circulating order.

In Mr. Donaldson's hands this view is not only a fact, but an instrument of criticism:--"The fact is, in our opinion, the original Semitic alphabet contained only sixteen letters. This appears from the organic arrangement of their characters. The remaining sixteen letters appear in the following order:--aleph, beth, gimel, daleth, he, vaw, kheth, teth, lamed, mem, nun, samech, ayn, pe, koph, tau. If we examine this order more minutely, we shall see that it is not arbitrary or accidental, but strictly organic, according to the Semitic articulation. We have four classes, each consisting of four letters: the first and second classes consist each of three mutes, preceded by a breathing; the third of the three liquids and the sibilant, which, perhaps, closed the oldest alphabet of all; and the fourth contains the three supernumerary mutes, preceded by a breathing. We place the characters first vertically:--

Aleph [Alef] First breathing Beth [Bet] B } Gimel [Gimel] G } Media. Daleth [Dalet] D } He [He] Second breathing. Vaw [Vav] Bh } Kheth [Khet] Gh } Aspirate. Teth [Tet] Dh } Lamed [Lamed] L } Mem [Mem] M } Liquids. Nun [Nun] N } Samech [Samekh] S The Sibilant. Ayn [Ayin] Third breathing. Pe [Pe] P } Koph [Kuf] K } Tenues. Tau [Tav] T }

In the horizontal arrangement we shall, for the sake of greater simplicity, omit the liquids and the sibilant, and then we have {213}

Breathings. Labials. Palatals. Linguals.

[Alef] [Bet] [Gimel] [Dalet] [He] [Vav] [Khet] [Tet] [Ayin] [Pe] [Kuf] [Tav]

In this we see, that, while the horizontal lines give us the arrangement of the mutes according to the breathings, the vertical columns exhibit them arranged according to the organ by which they are produced. Such a classification is obviously artificial."

s. 269. Parallel and equivalent orthographies.--Let there be in two given languages the sound of k, as in kin. Let each of these languages represent it by the same letter, k. In this case, the two orthographies are identical. Let, however, one nation represent it by k, and another by c. In this case the orthographies are not identical, but parallel. The same is the case with combinations. Let one nation (say the Anglo-Saxon) represent the sound of y (in ye) by e, whilst another nation (the Norse) represents it by j. What the Anglo-Saxon spells ceaster, the Northman spells kjaster; and what the Northman spells kjaere, the Anglo-Saxon spells ceaere. Let the sound of this ce and kj undergo a change, and become ksh; kjaere and ceaere, being pronounced kshaere. The view of the Northman and Anglo-Saxon will be the same; each will consider that the compound sound differs from the simple one by the addition of the sound of y; that sound being expressed in one nation by e, and in the other by j. In this case the two expressions of the compound sound are parallel, its elements being considered the same, although the signs by which those elements are expressed are different.

Let, however, a different view of the compound sound be taken. Let it be thought that the sound of ksh differs from that of k, not by the addition of the sound of y, but by that of h; and so let it be spelt kh or ch. In this case the orthographies kh and kj (or ce) are not parallel, but equivalent. They express the same sound, but they do not denote the same elements. The same sound is, very possibly, expressed by the Anglo-Saxon ce, the Norwegian kj, and the English ch. In this case ce and kj are parallel, ce and ch equivalent, orthographies.

* * * * *

{214}

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

IV. ETYMOLOGY

--------

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

I. ON THE PROVINCE OF ETYMOLOGY

s. 270. The word etymology, derived from the Greek, in the current language of scholars and grammarians, has a double meaning. At times it is used in a wide, and at times in a restricted, sense. What follows is an exhibition of the province or department of etymology.

If in the English language we take such a word as fathers, we are enabled to divide it into two parts; in other words, to reduce it into two elements. By comparing it with the word father, we see that the s is neither part nor parcel of the original word. The word fathers is a word capable of being analysed; father being the original primitive word, and s the secondary superadded termination. From the word father, the word fathers is derived, or (changing the expression) deduced, or descended. What has been said of the word fathers may also be said of fatherly, fatherlike, fatherless, &c. Now, from the word father, all these words (fathers, fatherly, fatherlike and fatherless) differ in form, and (not, however, necessarily) in meaning. To become such a word as fathers, &c., the word father is changed. Of changes of this sort, it is the province of etymology to take cognizance.

Compared with the form fathers, the word father is the older form of the two. The word father is a word current in this the nineteenth century. The same word was current in {215} the first century, although under a different form, and in a different language. Thus, in the Latin language, the form was pater; and earlier still, there is the Sanskrit form pitr. Now, just as the word father, compared with fathers, is original and primitive, so is pater, compared with father, original and primitive. The difference is, that in respect to father and fathers, the change that takes place, takes place within the same language, whilst the change that takes place between pater and father takes place within different languages. Of changes of this latter kind it is the province of etymology to take cognizance.

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

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

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

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

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

In fathers we have a formation deduced from the radical word father. {216}

In fatherlike we have a compound word capable of being analysed into the two primitive words, 1. father; 2. like.

With these preliminaries we may appreciate (or criticise) Dr. Johnson's explanation of the word etymology.

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

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

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

* * * * *

{217}

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

II. ON GENDER

s. 271. The nature of gender is best exhibited by reference to those languages wherein the distinction of gender is most conspicuous. Such a language, amongst others, is the Latin.

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

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

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

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

s. 272. Neither are words like cock-sparrow, man-servant, he-goat, &c., as compared with hen-sparrow, maid-servant, she-goat, &c., specimens of gender. Here a difference of sex is indicated by the addition of a fresh term, from which is formed a compound word.

s. 273. In the Latin words genitrix=a mother, and genitor=a father, we have a nearer approach to gender. Here the difference of sex is expressed by a difference of termination; {218} the words genitor and genitrix being in a true etymological relation, i. e., either derived from each other, or from some common source. With this we have, in English corresponding modes of expression: e. g.,

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

This, however, in strict grammatical language, is an approach to gender rather than gender itself. Its difference from true grammatical gender is as follows:--

Let the Latin words genitor and genitrix be declined:--

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

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

s. 274. Contrast, however, with the words genitor and genitrix the words domina=a mistress, and dominus=a master.

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

{219}

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

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

s. 275. The second element in the notion of gender, although I will not venture to call it an essential one, is the following:--In the words domina and dominus, mistress and master, there is a natural distinction of sex; the one being masculine, or male, the other feminine, or female. In the words sword and lance there is no natural distinction of sex. Notwithstanding this, the word hasta, in Latin, is as much a feminine gender as domina, whilst gladius=a sword is, like dominus, a masculine noun. From this we see that, in languages wherein there are true genders, a fictitious or conventional sex is attributed even to inanimate objects. Sex is a natural distinction, gender a grammatical one.

s. 276. "Although we have, in English, words corresponding to genitrix and genitor, we have no true genders until we find words corresponding to dominus and domina."--The sentence was intentionally worded with caution. Words like dominus and domina, that is, words where the declension is affected by the sex, are to be found.

The pronoun him, from the Anglo-Saxon and English he, as compared with the pronoun her, from the Anglo-Saxon he[`o], is affected in its declension by the difference of sex, and is a true, though fragmentary, specimen of gender: for be it observed, that as both words are in the same case and number, the difference in form must be referred to a difference of sex expressed by gender. The same is the case with the form his as compared with her.

The pronoun it (originally hit), as compared with he, is a specimen of gender. {220}

The relative what, as compared with the masculine who, is a specimen of gender.

The forms it (for hit) and he are as much genders as hic and haec, and the forms hic and haec are as much genders as dominus and domina.

s. 277. The formation of the neuter gender by the addition of -t, in words like wha-t, i-t, and tha-t, occurs in other Indo-European languages. The -t in tha-t is the -d in istu-d, Latin, and the -t in ta-t, Sanskrit. Except, however, in the Gothic tongues, the inflection -t is confined to the pronouns. In the Gothic this is not the case. Throughout all those languages where there is a neuter form for adjectives at all, that form is either -t, or a sound derived from it:--Moeso-Gothic, blind-ata; Old High German, plint-ez; Icelandic, blind-t; German, blind-es=blind, caec-um.--See Bopp's Comparative Grammar, Eastwick and Wilson's translation, p. 171.

Which, as seen below, is not the neuter of who.

s. 278. Just as there are in English fragments of a gender modifying the declension, so are there, also, fragments of the second element of gender; viz., the attribution of sex to objects naturally destitute of it. _The sun in his glory_, _the moon in her wane_, are examples of this. A sailor calls his ship she. A husbandman, according to Mr. Cobbett, does the same with his plough and working implements:--"In speaking of a ship we say she and her. And you know that our country-folks in Hampshire call almost everything he or she. It is curious to observe that country labourers give the feminine appellation to those things only which are more closely identified with themselves, and by the qualities or conditions of which their own efforts, and their character as workmen, are affected. The mower calls his scythe a she, the ploughman calls his plough a she; but a prong, or a shovel, or a harrow, which passes promiscuously from hand to hand, and which is appropriated to no particular labourer, is called a he."--English Grammar, Letter V.

Now, although Mr. Cobbett's statements may account for a sailor calling his ship she, they will not account for the custom of giving to the sun a masculine, and to the moon a {221} feminine, pronoun, as is done in the expressions quoted at the head of this section; still less will it account for the circumstance of the Germans reversing the gender, and making the sun feminine, and the moon masculine.

Let there be a period in the history of a nation wherein the sun and moon are dealt with, not as inanimate masses of matter, but as animated divinities. Let there, in other words, be a period in the history of a nation wherein dead things are personified, and wherein there is a mythology. Let an object like the sun be deemed a male, and an object like the moon a female, deity.

The Germans say the _sun in her glory_; the _moon in his wane_. This difference between the usage of the two languages, like so many others, is explained by the influence of the classical languages upon the English.--"Mundilfori had two children; a son, M[^a]ni (Moon), and a daughter, S[^o]l (Sun)."--Such is an extract (taken second-hand from Grimm, vol. iii. p. 349) out of an Icelandic mythological work, viz., the prose Edda. In the classical languages, however, Phoebus and Sol are masculine, and Luna and Diana feminine. Hence it is that, although in Anglo-Saxon and Old-Saxon the sun is feminine, it is in English masculine.

Philosophy, charity, &c., or the names of abstract qualities personified, take a conventional sex, and are feminine from their being feminine in Latin.

As in these words there is no change of form, the consideration of them is a point of rhetoric, rather than of etymology.

Upon phrases like Cock Robin, Robin Redbreast, Jenny Wren, expressive of sex, much information may be collected from Grimm's Deutsche Grammatik, vol. iii. p. 359.

s. 279. The remainder of this chapter is devoted to miscellaneous remarks upon the true and apparent genders of the English language.

1. With the false genders like baron, baroness, it is a general rule that the feminine form is derived from the masculine, and not the masculine from the feminine; as peer, peeress. The words widower, gander, and drake are exceptions. For {222} the word wizard, from witch, see the section on augmentative forms.

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

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

4. The termination -inn, so current in German, as the equivalent to -ess, and as a feminine affix (freund=a friend; freundinn=a female friend), is found only in one or two words in English.

There were five carlins in the south That fell upon a scheme, To send a lad to London town To bring them tidings hame.

BURNS.

Carlin means an old woman: Icelandic, kerling; Sw., kaering; Dan. kaelling. Root, carl.

Vixen is a true feminine derivative from fox. German, fuechsinn.

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

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

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

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

The same is the case in the present Dutch of Holland: e.g., spookster=a female fortune-teller; bakster=a {223} baking-woman; waschster=a washerwoman. (Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, iii. p. 339.) The word spinster still retains its original feminine force.

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

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

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

9. The circumstance of prince ending in the sound of s, works a change in the accent of the word. As s is the final letter, it is necessary, in forming the plural number, and the genitive case, to add, not the simple letter s, as in peers, priests, &c., but the syllable -es. This makes the plural number and genitive case the same as the feminine form. Hence the feminine form is accented princ['e]ss, while pe['e]ress, pr['i]estess, &c., carry the accent on the first syllable. Princ['e]ss is remarkable as being the only word in English where the accent lies on the subordinate syllable.

10. It is uncertain whether kit, as compared with cat, be a feminine form or a diminutive form; in other words, whether it mean a female cat or a young cat.--See the Chapter on the Diminutives.

11. Goose, gander.--One peculiarity in this pair of words has already been indicated. In the older forms of the word goose, such as [Greek: chen], Greek; anser, Latin; gans, German, as well as in the derived form gander, we have the proofs that, originally, there belonged to the word the sound of the letter n. In the forms [Greek: odous], [Greek: odontos], Greek; dens, dentis, Latin; zahn, {224} German; tooth, English, we find the analogy that accounts for the ejection of the n, and the lengthening of the vowel preceding. With respect, however, to the d in gander, it is not easy to say whether it is inserted in one word or omitted in the other. Neither can we give the precise power of the -er. The following forms (taken from Grimm, iii. p. 341) occur in the different Gothic dialects. Gans, fem.; ganazzo, masc., Old High German--g[^o]s, f.; gandra, m., Anglo-Saxon--g[^a]s, Icelandic, f.; gaas, Danish, f.; gassi, Icelandic, m.; gasse, Danish, m.--ganser, ganserer, gansart, gaenserich, gander, masculine forms in different New German dialects.

12. Observe, the form gaenserich has a masculine termination. The word taeuberich, in provincial New German, has the same form and the same power. It denotes a male dove; taube, in German, signifying a dove. In gaenserich and taeuberich, we find preserved the termination -rich (or -rik), with a masculine power. Of this termination we have a remnant, in English, preserved in the curious word drake. To duck the word drake has no etymological relation whatsoever. It is derived from a word with which it has but one letter in common; viz. the Latin anas=a duck. Of this the root is anat-, as seen in the genitive case anatis. In Old High German we find the form anetrekho=a drake; in provincial New High German there is enterich and aentrecht, from whence come the English and Low German form drake. (Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, iii. p. 341.)

13. Peacock, peahen, bridegroom.--In these compounds, it is not the words pea and bride that are rendered masculine or feminine by the addition of cock, hen, and groom, but it is the words cock, hen, and groom that are modified by prefixing pea and bride. For an appreciation of this distinction, see the Chapter on Composition.

* * * * *

{225}

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

III. THE NUMBERS

s. 280. In the Greek language the word pataer signifies a father, speaking of one, whilst patere signifies two fathers, speaking of a pair, and thirdly, pateres signifies fathers, speaking of any number beyond two. The three words, pataer, patere, and pateres, are said to be in different numbers, the difference of meaning being expressed by a difference of form. These numbers have names. The number that speaks of one is the singular, the number that speaks of two is the dual (from the Latin word duo=two), and the number that speaks of more than two is the plural.

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

s. 281. The question presents itself,--to what extent have we numbers in English? Like the Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, we have a singular and a plural. Like the Latin, and unlike the Greek and Hebrew, we have no dual.

s. Different from the question, to what degree have we numbers? is the question,--over what extent of our language have we numbers? This distinction has already been foreshadowed or indicated. The Greeks, who said typt[^o]=I beat, typteton=ye two beat, typtomen=we beat, had a dual number for their verbs as well as their nouns; while the Hebrew dual was limited to the nouns only. In the Greek, then, the dual {226} number is spread over a greater extent of the language than in the Hebrew.

There is no dual in the present English. It has been seen, however, that in the Anglo-Saxon there was a dual. But the Anglo-Saxon dual, being restricted to the personal pronouns (wit=we two; git=ye two), was not co-extensive with the Greek dual.

There is no dual in the present German. In the ancient German there was one.

In the present Danish and Swedish there is no dual. In the Old Norse and in the present Icelandic a dual number is to be found.

From this we learn that the dual number is one of those inflections that languages drop as they become modern.

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

For the forms selves and others, see the Syntax. For the present, it is sufficient to foreshadow a remark which will be made on the word self, viz. that whether it be a pronoun, a substantive, or an adjective, is a disputed point.

Words like wheat, pitch, gold, &c., where the idea is naturally singular; words like bellows, scissors, lungs, &c., where the idea is naturally plural; and words like deer, sheep, where the same form serves for the singular and plural, inasmuch as there takes place no change of form, are not under the province of etymology.

s. 282. The current rule is, that the plural number is formed from the singular by adding s, as father, fathers. {227} However, if the reader will revert to the Section upon the sharp and flat Mutes, where it is stated that mutes of different degrees of sharpness and flatness cannot come together in the same syllable, he will find occasion to take to the current rule a verbal exception. The letter added to the word father, making it fathers, is s to the eye only. To the ear it is z. The word sounds fatherz. If the s retained its sound, the spelling would be fatherce. In stags, lads, &c., the sound is stagz, ladz. The rule, then, for the formation of the English plurals, rigorously expressed, is as follows.--The plural is formed from the singular, by adding to words ending in a vowel, a liquid or flat mute, the flat lene sibilant (z); and to words ending in a sharp mute, the sharp lene sibilant (s): e.g. (the sound of the word being expressed), pea, peaz; tree, treez; day, dayz; hill, hillz; hen, henz; gig, gigz; trap, traps; pit, pits; stack, stacks. Upon the formation of the English plural some further remarks are necessary.

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

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

III. Such combinations as peas, trees, hills, hens, &c. (the s preserving its original power, and being sounded as if written peace, treece, hillce, hence), being pronounceable, the change from s to z, in words so ending, is not a matter determined by the necessity of the case, but by the habit of the English language.

IV. Although the vast majority of our plurals ends, not in s, but in z, the original addition was not z, but s. This we {228} infer from three facts: 1. From the spelling; 2. from the fact of the sound of z being either rare or non-existent in Anglo-Saxon; 3. from the sufficiency of the causes to bring about the change.

It may now be seen that some slight variations in the form of our plurals are either mere points of orthography, or else capable of being explained on very simple euphonic principles.

s. 283. Boxes, churches, judges, lashes, kisses, blazes, princes.--Here there is the addition, not of the mere letter s, but of the syllable -es. As s cannot be immediately added to s, the intervention of a vowel becomes necessary; and that all the words whose plural is formed in -es really end either in the sounds of s, or in the allied sounds of z, sh, or zh, may be seen by analysis; since x=ks, ch=tsh, and j or ge=dzh, whilst ce, in prince, is a mere point of orthography for s.

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

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

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

s. 284. "A few apparent exceptions."--These words are taken from Observation II. in the present section. The apparent exceptions to the rule there laid down are the words loaf, wife, and a few others, whose plural is not sounded loafs, wifs (loafce, wifce), but loavz, wivz (written loaves, wives). Here it seems as if z had been added to the singular; and, contrary to rule, the final letter of the original word been accommodated to the z, instead of the z being accommodated to the final syllable of the word, and so becoming s. It is, however, very probable that instead of the plural form being changed, it is the singular that has been modified. In the Anglo-Saxon the f at the end of words (as in the present Swedish) had the power of v. In the allied language the words in point are spelt with the flat mute, as weib, laub, kalb, halb, stab, {229} German. The same is the case with leaf, leaves; calf, calves; half, halves; staff, staves; beef, beeves: this last word being Anglo-Norman.

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

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

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

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

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

Mathematics, metaphysics, politics, ethics, optics, physics.--The following is an exhibition of my hypothesis respecting these words, to which I invite the reader's criticism. All the words in point are of Greek origin, and all are derived from a Greek adjective. Each is the name of some department of {230} study, of some art, or of some science. As the words are Greek, so also are the sciences which they denote, either of Greek origin, or else such as flourished in Greece. Let the arts and sciences of Greece be expressed, in Greek, rather by a substantive and an adjective combined, than by a simple substantive; for instance, let it be the habit of the language to say the musical art, rather than music. Let the Greek for art be a word in the feminine gender; e.g., [Greek: techne] (tekhnae), so that the musical art be [Greek: he mousike techne] (hae mousikae tekhnae). Let, in the progress of language (as was actually the case in Greece), the article and substantive be omitted, so that, for the musical art, or for music, there stand only the feminine adjective, [Greek: mousike]. Let there be, upon a given art or science, a series of books, or treatises; the Greek for book, or treatise, being a neuter substantive, [Greek: biblion] (biblion). Let the substantive meaning treatise be, in the course of language, omitted, so that whilst the science of physics is called [Greek: phusike] (fysikae), physic, from [Greek: he phusike techne], a series of treatises (or even chapters) upon the science shall be called [Greek: phusika] (fysika) or physics. Now all this was what happened in Greece. The science was denoted by a feminine adjective singular, as [Greek: phusike] (fysicae), and the treatises upon it, by the neuter adjective plural, as [Greek: phusika] (fysica). The treatises of Aristotle are generally so named. To apply this, I conceive, that in the middle ages a science of Greek origin might have its name drawn from two sources, viz., from the name of the art or science, or from the name of the books wherein it was treated. In the first case it had a singular form, as physic, logic; in the second place a plural form, as mathematics, metaphysics, optics.

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

s. 285. The plural form children (child-er-en) requires particular notice.

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

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

In Icelandic, no plural termination is commoner than {231} that in -r; as geisl-ar=flashes, tung-ur=tongues, &c. Nevertheless, it is not the Icelandic that explains the plural form in question.

Besides the word childer, we collect from the other Gothic tongue the following forms in -r.--

Hus-er, Houses. Old High German. Chalp-ir, Calves. ditto. Lemp-ir, Lambs. ditto. Plet-ir, Blades of grass. ditto. Eig-ir, Eggs. ditto.

and others, the peculiarity of which is the fact of their all being of the neuter gender. The particular Gothic dialect wherein they occur most frequently is the Dutch of Holland.

Now, the theory respecting the form so propounded by Grimm (D. G. iii. p. 270) is as follows:--

1. The -r represents an earlier -s.

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

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

To these views Bopp adds, that the termination in question is the Sanskrit -as, a neuter affix; as in t[^e]j-as=splendour, strength, from tij=to sharpen.--V. G. pp. 141-259, Eastwick's and Wilson's translation.

To these doctrines of Grimm and Bopp, it should be added, that the reason why a singular derivational affix should become the sign of the plural number, lies, most probably, in the collective nature of the words in which it occurs: Husir=a collection of houses, eigir=_a collection of eggs, eggery or eyry_. For further observations on the power of -r, and for reasons for believing it to be the same as in the words Jew-r-y, yeoman-r-y, see a paper of Mr. Guest's, Philol. Trans., May 26, 1843. There we find the remarkable form lamb-r-en, from Wicliffe, Joh. xxi. Lamb-r-en : lamb :: child-r-en : child. {232}

s. 286. The form in -en.--In the Anglo-Saxon no termination of the plural number is more common than -n: tungan, tongues; steorran, stars. Of this termination we have evident remains in the words oxen, hosen, shoon, eyne, words more or less antiquated. This, perhaps, is no true plural. In welk-in=the clouds, the original singular form is lost.

s. 287. Men, feet, teeth, mice, lice, geese.--In these we have some of the oldest words in the language. If these were, to a certainty, true plurals, we should have an appearance somewhat corresponding to the weak and strong tenses of verbs; viz., one series of plurals formed by a change of the vowel, and another by the addition of the sibilant. The word kye, used in Scotland for cows, is of the same class. The list in Anglo-Saxon of words of this kind is different from that of the present English.

Sing. Plur. Fre['o]nd Fr['y]nd Friends. Fe['o]nd Fynd Foes. Niht Niht Nights. B['o]c B['e]c Books. Burh Byrig Burghs. Br['o]c Br['e]c Breeches. Turf T['y]rf Turves.

s. 288. Brethren.--Here there are two changes. 1. The alteration of the vowel. 2. The addition of -en. Mr. Guest quotes the forms brethre and brothre from the Old English. The sense is collective rather than plural.

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

Pullen=poultry.

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

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

{233}

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

A false theefe, That came like a false fox, my pullain to kill and mischeefe.

Gammer Gurton's Needle, v. 2.

Chickens.--A third variety of the double inflection (en + s), with the additional peculiarity of the form chicken being used, at present, almost exclusively in the singular number, although, originally, it was, probably, the plural of chick. So Wallis considered it:--"At olim etiam per -en vel -yn formabant pluralia: quorum pauca admodum adhuc retinemus. Ut, an ox, a chick, pluraliter oxen, chicken (sunt qui dicunt in singulari chicken, et in plurali chickens)."--(P. 77). Chick, chick-en, chick-en-s.

Fern.--According to Wallis the -n in fer-n is the -en in oxen, in other words, a plural termination:--"A fere (filix) pluraliter fern (verum nunc plerumque fern utroque numero dicitur, sed et in plurali ferns); nam fere et feres prope obsoleta sunt."--(P. 77.) Subject to this view, the word fer-n-s would exhibit the same phenomenon as the word chicke-n-s. It is doubtful, however, whether Wallis's view be correct. A reason for believing the -n to be radical is presented by the Anglo-Saxon form fearn, and the Old High German, varam.

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

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

Paths, youths.--Pronounced padhz, yoodhz. The same peculiarity in the case of th and dh, as occurs between s and z in the words house, houses. "Finita in f plerumque alleviantur in plurali numero, substituendo v; ut wife, wives, &c. Eademque alleviatio est etiam in s et th, quamvis retento charactere, in house, cloth, path."--P. 79.

* * * * *

{234}

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

IV. ON THE CASES

s. 289. The extent to which there are, in the English language, cases, depends on the meaning which we attach to the word case. In the sentence a house of a father, the idea expressed by the words of a father, is an idea of relation between them and the word house. This idea is an idea of property or possession. The relation between the words father and house may be called the possessive relation. This relation, or connexion, between the two words is expressed by the preposition of.

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

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

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

Now if the relation alone between two words constitutes a case, the words or sentences, child; to a father; of a father; and father's, are all equally cases; of which one may be {235} called the accusative, another the dative, a third the genitive, and so on.

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

Now it is a remark, at least as old as Dr. Beattie,[39] that if the use of a preposition constitute a case, there must be as many cases in a language as there are prepositions, and that "above a man, beneath a man, beyond a man, round about a man, within a man, without a man, shall be cases, as well as of a man, to a man, and with a man."

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

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

Here, since in the Latin language there are five changes of form, whilst in English there are but two, there are (as far, at least, as the word pater and father are concerned) three more cases in Latin than in English. It does not, however, follow that because in father we have but two cases, there may not be other words wherein there are more than two.

In order to constitute a case there must be a change of form.--This statement is a matter of definition. A second question, however, arises out of it; viz., whether every change of form constitute a case? In the Greek language there are the words [Greek: erin] (erin), and [Greek: erida] (erida). Unlike the words father and father's these two words have precisely the same meaning. Each is called an accusative; and each, {236} consequently, is said to be in the same case with the other. This indicates the statement, that in order to constitute a case there must be not only a change of form, but also a change of meaning. Whether such a limitation of the word be convenient, is a question for the general grammarian. At present we merely state that there is no change of case unless there be a change of form. Hence, in respect to the word patribus (and others like it), which is sometimes translated from fathers, and at other times to fathers, we must say, not that in the one case the word is ablative and in the other dative, but that a certain case is used with a certain latitude of meaning. This remark bears on the word her in English. In her book the sense is that of the case currently called genitive. In it moved her, the sense is that of the case currently called the accusative. If we adhere, however, to what we have laid down, we must take exceptions to this mode of speaking. It is not that out of the single form her we can get two cases, but that a certain form has two powers; one that of the Latin genitive, and another that of the Latin accusative.

s. 290. This leads to an interesting question, viz., what notions are sufficiently allied to be expressed by the same form, and in the same case? The word her, in its two senses, may, perhaps, be dealt with as a single case, because the notions conveyed by the genitive and accusative are, perhaps, sufficiently allied to be expressed by the same word. Are the notions, however, of a mistress, and mistresses, so allied? I think not; and yet in the Latin language the same form, dominae, expresses both. Of dominae=of a mistress, and of dominae=mistresses, we cannot say that there is one and the same case with a latitude of meaning. The words were, perhaps, once different. And this leads to the distinction between a real and an accidental identity of form.

In the language of the Anglo-Saxons the genitive cases of the words smith (smidh), end (ende), and day (daeg), were, respectively, smithes (smidhes), endes, and dayes (daeges); whilst the nominative plurals were, respectively, smithas (smidhas), endas, and dayas (daegas). A process of change took place, by which the vowel of the last syllable in each {237} word was ejected. The result was, that the forms of the genitive singular and the nominative plural, originally different, became one and the same; so that the identity of the two cases is an accident.

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

s. 291. The number of our cases and the extent of language over which they spread.--In the English language there is undoubtedly a nominative case. This occurs in substantives, adjectives, and pronouns (father, good, he) equally. It is found in both numbers.

Accusative.--Some call this the objective case. The words him (singular) and them (plural) (whatever they may have been originally) are now true accusatives. The accusative case is found in pronouns only. Thee, me, us, and you are, to a certain extent, true accusatives.

They are accusative thus far: 1. They are not derived from any other case. 2. They are distinguished from the forms I, my, &c. 3. Their meaning is accusative. Nevertheless, they are only imperfect accusatives. They have no sign of case, and are distinguished by negative characters only.

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

Neut. Masc. Fem. N. and Ac. Tw['a], Tw['e]gen, Tw['a]. \------\/-------/ Abl. and Dat. Tw['a]m, Tw['ae]m. Gen. Twegra, Twega.

Although nominative as well as accusative, I have little doubt as to the original character of tw['e]gen being accusative. The {238} -n is by no means radical; besides which, it is the sign of an accusative case, and is not the sign of a nominative.

Note.--The words him and them are true accusatives in even a less degree than thee, me, us, and you. The Anglo-Saxon equivalents to the Latin words eos and illos were hi (or hig) and th['a] (or thaege); in other words, the sign of the accusative was other than the sound of -m. The case which really ended in -m was the so-called dative; so that the Anglo-Saxon forms him (or heom) and th['a]m=the Latin iis and illis.

This fact explains the meaning of the words, whatever they may have been originally, in a preceding sentence. It also indicates a fresh element in the criticism and nomenclature of the grammarian; viz., the extent to which the history of a form regulates its position as an inflection.

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

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

Instrumental.--The following extracts from Rask's Anglo-Saxon Grammar, teach us that there exist in the present English two powers of the word spelt t-h-e, or of the so-called definite article.

"The demonstrative pronouns are thaet, se, se['o] (id, is, ea), which are also used for the article; and this, thes, the['o]s (hoc, hic, haec). They are thus declined:-- {239}

Neut. Masc. Fem. Neut. Masc. Fem. Sing. N. thaet se se['o] this thes the['o]s. A. thaet thone th['a] this thisne th['a]s. \----\/----/ \-----\/-----/ Abl. th['y] th['ae]re thise thisse. D. th['a]m th['ae]re thisum thisse. G. thaes th['ae]re thises thisse. \--------\/-------/ \--------\/--------/ Plur. N. and A. th['a] th['a]s. Abl. and D. th['a]m thisum. G. th['a]ra thissa.

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

"thy seems justly to be received as a proper ablativus instrumenti, as it occurs often in this character, even in the masculine gender; as, mid thy ['a]the=with that oath (Inae Reges, 53). And in the same place in the dative, on th['ae]m ['a]the=in that oath."--Pp. 56, 57.

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

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

Neut. Masc. N. Hwaet Hw['a]. A. Hwaet Hwone (hwaene). \------\/------/ Abl. Hwi D. Hw['a]m (hwae'm) G. Hwaes.

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

s. 292. The determination of cases.--How do we determine cases? In other words, why do we call him and them {240} accusatives rather than datives or genitives? By one of two means; viz., either by the sense or the form.

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

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

My, an accusative form (meh, me, mec), has now a genitive sense. The same may be said of thy.

Me, originally an accusative form (both me and my can grow out of mec and meh), had, even with the Anglo-Saxons, a dative sense. Give it me is correct English. The same may be said of thee.

Him, a dative form, has now an accusative sense.

Her.--For this word, as well as for further details on me and my, see the Chapters on the Personal and Demonstrative Pronouns. {241}

s. 293. When all traces of the original dative signification are effaced, and when all the dative cases in a language are similarly affected, an accusative case may be said to have originated out of a dative.

s. 294. Thus far the question has been concerning the immediate origin of cases: their remote origin is a different matter.

The word um occurs in Icelandic. In Danish and Swedish it is om; in the Germanic languages omme, umbi, umpi, ymbe, and also um. Its meaning is at, on, about. The word whilom is the substantive while=a time or pause (Dan. hvile=to rest), with the addition of the preposition om. That the particular dative form in om has arisen out of the noun plus the preposition is a safe assertion. I am not prepared, however, to account for the formation of all the cases in this manner.

s. 295. Analysis of cases.--In the word children's we are enabled to separate the word into three parts. 1. The root child. 2. The plural signs r and en. 3. The sign of the genitive case, s. In this case the word is said to be analysed, since we not only take it to pieces, but also give the respective powers of each of its elements; stating which denotes the case, and which the number. Although it is too much to say that the analysis of every case of every number can be thus effected, it ought always to be attempted.

s. 296. The true nature of the genitive form in s.--It is a common notion that the genitive form father's is contracted from father his. The expression in our liturgy, for Jesus Christ his sake, which is merely a pleonastic one, is the only foundation for this assertion. As the idea, however, is not only one of the commonest, but also one of the greatest errors in etymology, the following three statements are given for the sake of contradiction to it.

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

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

3. In all the languages of the vast Indo-European tribe, except the Celtic, the genitive ends in s, just as it does in {242} English; so that even if the words father his would account for the English word father's, it would not account for the Sanskrit genitive pad-as, of a foot; the Zend dughdhar-s, of a daughter; the Lithuanic dugter-s; the Greek [Greek: odont-os]; the Latin dent-is, &c.

For further remarks upon the English genitive, see the Cambridge Philological Museum, vol. ii. p. 246.

* * * * *

{243}

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

V. THE PERSONAL PRONOUNS

s. 297. I, we, us, me, thou, ye.--These constitute the true personal pronouns. From he, she, and it, they differ in being destitute of gender.

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

In other languages the current pronouns of the third person are, as in English, demonstrative rather than personal.

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

I, in German ich, Icelandic ek, corresponds with [Greek: ego], and ego of the classical languages; ego and [Greek: ego] being, like I, defective in the oblique cases.

My, as stated above, is a form originally accusative, but now used in a genitive sense.

Me.--In Anglo-Saxon this was called a dative form. The fact seems to be that both my and me grow out of an accusative form, meh, mec.

That the sound of k originally belonged to the pronouns me and thee, we learn not only from the Anglo-Saxons mec, thec, meh, theh, but from the Icelandic mik, thik, and the German mich, dich. This accounts for the form my; since y=ey, and the sounds of y and g are allied. That both me and my can be evolved from mik, we see in the present Scandinavian languages, where, very often even in the same district, mig is pronounced both mey and mee. {244}

We and our.--These words are not in the condition of I and me. Although the fact be obscured, they are really in an etymological relation to each other. This we infer from the alliance between the sounds of w and ou, and from the Danish forms vi (we), vor (our). It may be doubted, however, whether our be a true genitive rather than an adjectival form. In the form ours we find it playing the part, not of a case, but of an independent word. Upon this, however, too much stress cannot be laid. In Danish it takes a neuter form: vor=noster; vort=nostrum. From this I conceive that it agrees, not with the Latin genitive nostr[^u]m, but with the adjective noster.

Us, we, our.--Even us is in an etymological relation to we. That we and our are so, has just been shown. Now in Anglo-Saxon there were two forms of our, viz., ['u]re (=nostr[^u]m), and user (=noster). This connects we and us through our.

From these preliminary notices we have the changes in form of the true personal pronouns, as follows:--

1ST PERSON

1st Term. (for nominative singular). I. Undeclined. 2nd Term. (for the singular number). Acc. Me. Gen. My. Form in n--Mine. 3rd Term. (for the plural number). Nom. We. Acc. Us. Form in r--Our, ours.

2ND PERSON.

1st Term. (for the singular number). Nom. Thou. Acc. Thee. Gen. Thy. Form in n--Thine. 2nd Term. (for the plural number). Nom. Ye. Acc. You. Form in r--Your, yours.

s. 298. We and me have been dealt with as distinct words. But it is only for practical purposes that they can be considered to be thus separate; since the sounds of m and w are allied, and in Sanskrit the singular form ma=I is looked upon as part of the same word with vayam=we. The same is the case with the Greek [Greek: me] (me), and the plural form [Greek: hemeis] (haemeis)=we.

You.--As far as the practice of the present mode of speech {245} is concerned, the word you is a nominative form; since we say you move, you are moving, you were speaking.

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

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

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

Now to call such expressions incorrect English is to assume the point. No one says that c'est moi is bad French, and that c'est je is good. The fact is, that the whole question is a question of degree. Has or has not the custom been sufficiently prevalent to have transferred the forms me, ye, and you from one case to another, as it is admitted to have done with the forms him and whom, once dative, but now accusative?

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

Again: the reasons which allow the form you to be {246} considered as a nominative plural, on the strength of its being used for ye, will not allow it to be considered a nominative singular on the strength of its being used for thou. It is submitted to the reader, that in phrases like you are speaking, &c., even when applied to a single individual, the idea is really plural; in other words, that the courtesy consists in treating one person as more than one, and addressing him as such, rather than in using a plural form in a singular sense. It is certain that, grammatically considered, you=thou is a plural, since the verb with which it agrees is plural:--you are speaking, not you art speaking.

* * * * *

{247}

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

Chapter VI

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

s. 299. A true reflective pronoun is wanting in English. In other words, there are no equivalents to the Latin pronominal forms sui, sibi, se.

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

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

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

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

The history of the reflective pronoun in the Gothic tongues is as follows:--

In Moeso-Gothic.--Found in three cases, seina, sis, sik=sui, sibi, se.

In Old Norse.--Ditto. Sin, ser, sik=sui, sibi, se.

In Old High German.--The dative form lost; there being no such word as sir=sis=sibi. Besides this, the genitive {248} or possessive form sin is used only in the masculine and neuter genders.

In Old Frisian.--As stated above, there is here no equivalent to se; whilst there is the form sin=suus.

In Old Saxon.--The equivalent to se, sibi, and sui very rare. The equivalent to suus not common, but commoner than in Anglo-Saxon.

In Anglo-Saxon.--No instance of the equivalent to se at all. The forms sinne=suum, and sinum=suo, occur in Beowulf. In Caedmon cases of sin=suus are more frequent. Still the usual form is his=ejus.

In the Dutch, Danish, and Swedish, the true reflectives, both personal and possessive, occur; so that the modern Frisian and English stand alone in respect to the entire absence of them.--Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 321-348.

The statement concerning the absence of the true reflective in English, although negative, has an important philological bearing on more points than one.

1. It renders the use of the word self much more necessary than it would be otherwise.

2. It renders us unable to draw a distinction between the meanings of the Latin words suus and ejus.

3. It precludes the possibility of the evolution of a middle voice like that of the Old Norse, where kalla-sc=kalla-sik.

* * * * *

{249}

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

VII. THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS, &c

s. 300. The demonstrative pronouns are, 1. He, it. 2. She. 3. This, that. 4. The.

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

1. The personal pronouns form an extremely natural class, if the pronouns of the two first persons (and se when found in the language) be taken by themselves. This is not the case if they be taken along with he, it, and she. The absence of gender, the peculiarity in their declension, and their defectiveness are marked characters wherein they agree with each other, but not with any other words.

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

3. The plural forms they, them, in the present English, are the plural forms of the root of that, a true demonstrative pronoun; so that even if he, she, and it could be treated as personal pronouns, it could only be in their so-called singular number.

4. The word she has grown out of the Anglo-Saxon se['o]. Now se['o] was in Anglo-Saxon the feminine form of the definite article; the definite article being a demonstrative pronoun.

Compared with the Anglo-Saxon the present English stands as follows:--

She.--The Anglo-Saxon form he['o], being lost to the language, is replaced by the feminine article se['o].

Her.--This is a case, not of the present she, but of the Anglo-Saxon he['o]: so that she may be said to be defective in {250} the oblique cases and her to be defective in the nominative.

Him.--A true dative form, which has replaced the Anglo-Saxon hine. When used as a dative, it was neuter as well as masculine.

His.--Originally neuter as well as masculine. Now as a neuter, replaced by its--"et quidem ipsa vox his, ut et interrogativum whose, nihil aliud sunt quam hee's, who's, ubi s omnino idem praestat quod in aliis possessivis. Similiter autem his pro hee's eodem errore quo nonnunquam bin pro been; item whose pro who's eodem errore quo done, gone, knowne, growne, &c., pro doen, goen, knowen, vel do'n, go'n, know'n, grow'n; utrobique contra analogiam linguae; sed usu defenditur."--Wallis, c. v.

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

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

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

They, their, them.--When hit had been changed into it, when he['o] had been replaced by she, and when the single form the, as an article, had come to serve for all the cases of all the genders, two circumstances took place: 1. The forms th['a]m and th['a]ra as definite articles became superfluous; and, 2. The connexion between the plural forms h['i], heom, heora, and the singular forms he and it, grew indistinct. These were conditions favourable to the use of the forms they, them, and their, instead of h['i], heom, heora.

Theirs.--In the same predicament with hers and its; either the case of an adjective, or a case formed from a case. {251}

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

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

I.

Se, se['o].

Of this word we meet two forms only, both of the singular number, and both in the nominative case; viz. masc. se; fem. se['o] (the). The neuter gender and the other cases of the article were taken from the pronoun thaet (that).

II.

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

Neut. Masc. Fem. Neut. Masc. Fem. Sing. Nom. thaet -- -- this thes the['o]s. Acc. thaet thone th[^a]. this thisne th['a]s. Abl. thy thy th['ae]re. thise thise thisse. Dat. th['a]m th['a]m th['ae]re. thisum thisum thisse. Gen. thaes thaes th['ae]re. thises thises thisse. \----------\/----------/ \---------\/---------/ Plur. Nom. Acc. th['a]. th['a]s. Abl. Dat. th['a]m. thisum. Gen. th['a]ra. thissa.

III.

Hit (it), he (he), he['o] (she).

Sing. Nom. hit he he['o]. Acc. hit hine h['i]. Dat. him him hire. Gen. his his hire. \--------\/--------/ Plur. Nom. Acc. hi Dat. him (heom). Gen. hira (heora).

IV.

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

s. 301. These.--Here observe-- {252}

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

2nd. That the Anglo-Saxon form is th[^a]s.

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

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

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

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

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

Wicliffe, Jon. v.

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

Chau., Prol.

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

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

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

Chau., The Second Nonnes Tale.

{253} 6. And alle we that ben in this aray And maken all this lamentation, We losten alle our husbondes at that toun.

Chau., The Knightes Tale.

7. A good man bryngeth forth gode thingis of good tresore.--Wicliffe, Matt. xii.

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

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

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

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

12. And hise disciplis camen and token his body.--Wicliffe, Matt. xiv.

13. Whan thise Bretons tuo were fled out of this lond Ine toke his feaute of alle, &c.

Rob. Brunne, p. 3.

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

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

s. 302. Those.--Perhaps the Anglo-Saxon th['a] with s added. Perhaps the th['a]s from this with its power altered. Rask, in his Anglo-Saxon Grammar, writes "from this we find, in the plural, thaes for th['a]s. From which afterwards, with a distinction in signification, these and those." The English form they is illustrated by the Anglo-Saxon form dhage=th['a]. The whole doctrine of the forms in question has yet to assume a satisfactory shape.

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

I.

The--Undeclined.

{254}

II.

She--Defective in the oblique cases.

III.

He.

Masc. Neut. Fem. Nom. He It (from hit) -- Acc. Him It Her. Dat. Him -- Her. Gen. His -- Her. Secondary Gen. -- Its Hers. No plural form.

IV.

That.

Neut. Masc. Fem. Sing. Nom. That -- -- Acc. That Than,[40] then -- Dat. -- -- There.[40] \-----------------\/----------------/ Plur. Nom. They.[41] Acc. Them.[41] Gen. Their.[41] Secondary Gen. Theirs.[41]

V.

Singular, This. Plural, These.

VI.

Those.

* * * * *

{255}

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

VIII. THE RELATIVE, INTERROGATIVE, AND CERTAIN OTHER PRONOUNS

s. 303. In the relative and interrogative pronouns, who, what, whom, whose, we have, expressed by a change of form, a neuter gender, what; a dative case, whom; and a genitive case, whose: the true power of the s (viz. as the sign of a case) being obscured by the orthographical addition of the e mute.

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

s. 304. The following points in the history of the demonstrative and relative pronouns are taken from Grimm's Deutsche Grammatik, vol. iii. pp. 1, 2, 3.

Throughout the Indo-European tribe the interrogative or relative idea is expressed by k, or by a modification of k; e.g., qu, hv, or h; as Sanskrit, kas, who; kataras, which of two; katama, which of many.--Lithuanic, kas, who; koks, of what sort; kokelys, how great; kaip, how.--Slavonic: kto, who, Russian and Polish; kdo, who, Bohemian; kotory, which, Russian; kolik, how great.--Quot, qualis, quantus, Latin.--[Greek: Kosos], [Greek: koios], [Greek: kote], Ionic Greek; in the other dialects, however, [Greek: poteros], [Greek: posos], &c.--Gothic: hvas, who, Moeso-Gothic; huer, Old High German; hvathar, which of two, Moeso-Gothic; huedar, Old High German; hvem, hvad, huanne, huar, Norse; what, why, which, where, &c., English.

Throughout the Indo-European tribe the demonstrative idea is expressed by t, or by a modification of it; as, Sanskrit, tat, that; tata-ras, such a one out of two.--Lithuanic, tas, he; toks, such; tokelys, so great; taip, so.--Slavonic, t' or {256} ta, he; taku, such; tako, so.--Tot, talis, tantum, Latin.--[Greek: Tosos], [Greek: toios], [Greek: tote], Greek; this, that, thus, English, &c.

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; in Swedish the word is hu.

s. 305. The following remarks (some of them not strictly etymological) apply to a few of the remaining pronouns. For further details, see Grimm, D. G. iii. 4.

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, m[^i]n l[^i]p, d[^i]n l[^i]p, 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, {257} 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 ein[^i]c=any, and einac=single. In Anglo-Saxon [^a]nega 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 [^e]nech has both meanings. This indicates the word ['a]n, one, as the root of the word in question.--Grimm, D. G. iii. 9.

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, hv[^e]leiks; Old High German, huelih; Anglo-Saxon, huilic and hvilc; Old Frisian, hwelik; Danish, hvilk-en; German, welch; Scotch, whilk; English, which. (Grimm, D. G., iii. 47). The same is the case with--

1. Such.--Moeso-Gothic, svaleiks; Old High German, s[^o]lih; Old Saxon, sul[^i]c; Anglo-Saxon, svilc; German, solch; English, such. (Grimm, D. G. iii. 48). 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, {258} Ritson, and Weber, from se ylca, is found in the following forms: Moeso-Gothic, th[^e]leiks; Norse, thvilikr. (Grimm, iii. 49.)

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 ylca, preceded also by the article se ylca, se['o] 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 l[^i]c the second element. (Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 50.)

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 [^e]o, io; in Middle High German, ie in New High German, je; in Old Saxon, io; in Anglo-Saxon, [^a]; in Norse, ae. Combined with this particle the word whit (thing) gives the following forms: Old High German, ['e]owiht; Anglo-Saxon, [^a]viht; Old Frisian, [^a]wet; English, aught. The word naught is aught preceded by the negative particle. (Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 52.)

Each.--The particle gi enters, like the particle in the composition of pronouns. Old High German, [^e]ogal[^i]her, every one; [^e]ocalih, 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,[42] must by no means be confounded with the word ylce, the same. (Grimm, D. G. iii. 54.)

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

Either.--Old High German, [^e]ogahuedar; Middle High German, iegeweder; Anglo-Saxon, aeghvaedher, aegdher; Old Frisian, eider.

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

Other, whether.--These words, although derived forms, being simpler than some that have preceded, might fairly {259} 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 Sanskrit there are two forms, ^a) kataras, the same word as whether, meaning which out of two; ^b) katamas, which out of many. So also [^e]kateras, one out of two; [^e]katamas, one out of many. In Greek, the Ionic form [Greek: koteros] ([Greek: 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 Sanskrit 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.

* * * * *

{260}

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

IX. ON CERTAIN FORMS IN -ER

s. 306. 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, 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 {261} 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 forms kataras=which of two persons? a comparative form; katamas=which of more than two persons? a superlative form. Similarly, [^e]kataras=one of two persons; [^e]katamas=one of more than two persons.

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

s. 307. 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.

An extension of the reasoning probably explains forms like the Greek [Greek: ampho-ter-os], and the plural possessive forms [Greek: noi-ter-os], [Greek: heme-ter-os], &c, which, like our own forms in -r, (ou-r, you-r) correspond in termination with the comparative degree ([Greek: sopho-ter-os], wiser). Words, also, like hither and thither are instances of what is probably the effect of a similar association of ideas.

s. 308. A confirmation of Bopp's view is afforded by the Laplandic languages. Herein the distinction between one of two and one of more than two is expressed by affixes; and these affixes are the signs of the comparative and superlative: gi=who; gua-bba=who of two; gutte-mush=who of many.

1. Gi=who, so that guabba may be called its comparative form.

2. Gutte also=who, so that guttemush may be called its superlative.

3. Precisely as the words guabba and guttemush are formed, so also are the regular degrees of adjectives. {262}

a. Nuorra=young; nuor-ab=younger; nuora-mush=youngest.

b. Bahha=bad; baha-b=worse; baha-mush=worst.

The following extracts from Stockfleth's Lappish Grammar were probably written without any reference to the Sanskrit or Greek. "Guabba, of which the form and meaning are comparative, appears to have originated in a combination of the pronoun gi, and the comparative affix -abbo."--"Guttemush, of which the form and meaning are superlative, is similarly derived from the pronoun gutte, and the superlative affix -mush."--Grammatik i det Lappiske Sprog, ss. 192, 193.

s. 309. 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.

* * * * *

{263}

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

X. THE COMPARATIVE DEGREE

s. 310. The proper preliminary to the study of the comparative and quasi-comparative forms in English is the history of the inflection or inflections by which they are expressed. There is no part of our grammar where it is more necessary to extend our view beyond the common limit of the Gothic stock of languages, than here.

In the Sanskrit language the signs of the comparative degree are two:--1. -tara, as punya=pure; punya-tara=purer; 2. -[^i]yas, as k['s]ipra=swift; k['s][^e]p[^i]yas=swifter. Of these the first is the most in use.

The same forms occur in the Zend; as husko=dry; husk[^o]-tara=drier; -[^i]yas, however, is changed into -is.

In the classical languages we have the same forms. 1. in uter, neuter, alter, [Greek: poteros], [Greek: leptoteros]. 2. In the adverb magis, Lat. In Bohemian and Polish, -ssj and -szy correspond with the Sanskrit forms -[^i]yas.

Thus we collect, that, expressive of the comparative degree, there are two parallel forms; viz., the form in tr, and the form in s; of which one is the most in use in one language, and the other in another.

s. 311. Before we consider the Gothic forms of the comparative, it may be advisable to note two changes to which it is liable. 1. The change of s into r; the Latin word meliorem being supposed to have been originally meliosem, and the s in nigrius, firmius, &c., being considered not so much the sign of the neuter gender as the old comparative s in its oldest form. 2. The ejection of t, as in the Latin words inferus, superus, compared with the Greek [Greek: leptoteros] (leptoteros). {264}

s. 312. Now, of the two parallel forms, the Gothic one was the form s; the words other and whether only preserving the form tr. And here comes the application of the remarks that have just gone before. The vast majority of our comparatives end in r, and so seem to come from tr rather than from s. This, however, is not the case. The r in words like sweeter is derived, not from tar--t, but from s, changed into r. In Moeso-Gothic the comparative ended in s (z); in Old High German the s has become r: Moeso-Gothic aldiza, batiza, sutiza; Old High German, altiro, betsiro, suatsiro; English, older, better, sweeter.

The importance of a knowledge of the form in s is appreciated when we learn that, even in the present English, there are vestiges of it.

s. 313. Comparison of adverbs.--The sun shines bright.--Herein the word bright means brightly; and although the use of the latter word would have been the more elegant, the expression is not ungrammatical; the word bright being looked upon as an adjectival adverb.

The sun shines to-day brighter than it did yesterday, and to-morrow it will shine brightest.--Here also the sense is adverbial; from whence we get the fact, that adverbs take degrees of comparison.

Now let the root mag-, as in magnus, [Greek: megas], and mikil (Norse), give the idea of greatness. In the Latin language we have from it two comparative forms: 1. the adjectival comparative major=greater; 2. the adverbial comparative magis=more (plus). The same takes place in Moeso-Gothic: maiza means greater, and is adjectival; mais means more, and is adverbial. The Anglo-Saxon forms are more instructive still; e.g., thaes the m[^a]=all the more, thaes the bet=all the better, have a comparative sense, but not a comparative form, the sign r being absent. Now, compared with major, and subject to the remarks that have gone before, the Latin magis is the older form. With m[^a] and bet, compared with more and better, this may or may not be the case. M[^a] and bet may each be one of two forms; 1. a positive used in a comparative sense; 2. a true comparative, which has lost {265} its termination. The present section has been written not for the sake of exhausting the subject, but to show that in the comparative degree there were often two forms; of which one, the adverbial, was either more antiquated, or more imperfect than the other: a fact bearing upon some of the forthcoming trains of etymological reasoning.

s. 314. Change of vowel.--By reference to Rask's Grammar, s. 128, it may be seen that in the Anglo-Saxon there were, for the comparative and superlative degrees, two forms; viz. -or and -re, and -ost and -este, respectively.

By reference to p. 159 of the present volume, it may be seen that the fulness or smallness of a vowel in a given syllable may work a change in the nature of the vowel in a syllable adjoining. 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. He['a]h, Hyrre, Hyhst. High. Eald, Yldre, Yldest. Old.

Of this change, the word last quoted is a still-existing specimen, as old, elder and older, eldest and oldest. Between the two forms there is a difference in meaning, elder being used as a substantive, and having a plural form, elders.

s. 315. The previous section has stated that in Anglo-Saxon there were two forms for the comparative and superlative degrees, one in -re and -este, the other in -or and -ost, respectively. Now the first of these was the form taken by adjectives; as se scearpre sweord=the sharper sword, and se scearpeste sweord=the sharpest sword. The second, on the other hand, was the form taken by adverbs; as, se sweord scyrdh scearpor=the sword cuts sharper, and se sweord scyrdh scearpost=the sword cuts sharpest.

The adjectival form has, as seen above, a tendency to make the vowel of the preceding syllable small: old, elder. {266}

The adverbial form has a tendency to make the vowel of the preceding syllable full.

Of this effect on the part of the adverbial form the adverbial comparative rather is a specimen. We pronounce the a as in father, or full. Nevertheless, the positive form is small, the a being pronounced as the a in fate.

The word rather means 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 adverbial, 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.

s. 316. 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 betser[^o]ro, m[^e]r[^o]ro, [^e]rerera=better, more, ere.

s. 317. 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. 318. 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 forms (or words) thou, thy, thee, are forms or words {267} 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.

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.--Grimm, D. G. iii. 604.

s. 319. Worse.--Moeso-Gothic, vairsiza; Old High German, wirsiro; Middle High German, wirser; Old Saxon, wirso; Anglo-Saxon, vyrsa; Old Norse, verri; Danish, vaerre; and Swedish, vaerre. Such are the adjectival forms. The adverbial forms are Moeso-Gothic, vairs; Old High German, virs; Middle High German, wirs; Anglo-Saxon, vyrs: Old Norse, verr; Danish, vaerre; Swedish, vaerre.--Grimm, D. G. iii. 606. Whether the present form in English be originally adjectival or adverbial is indifferent; since, as soon as the final a of vyrsa was omitted, the two words would be the same. The forms, however, vairsiza, wirser, worse, and verri, make the word one of the most perplexing in the language. {268}

If the form worse be taken without respect to the rest, the view of the matter is simply that in the termination s we have a remnant of the Moeso-Gothic forms, like sutiza, &c., in other words, the old comparative in s.

Wirser and vairsiza traverse this view. They indicate the likelihood of the s being no sign of the degree, but a part of the original word. Otherwise the r in wirser, and the z in vairsiza, denote an excess of expression.

The analogies of songstress, children, and betser[^o]ro show that excess of expression frequently occurs.

The analogy of m[^a] and bet show that worse may possibly be a positive form.

The word verri indicates the belief that the s is no part of the root.

Finally the euphonic processes of the Scandinavian languages tell us that, even had there been an s, it would, in all probability, have been ejected. These difficulties verify the statement that the word worse is one of the most perplexing in the language.

s. 320. Much, more.--Here, although the words be unlike each other, there is a true etymological relation. Moeso-Gothic, mikils; Old High German, mihhil; Old Saxon, mikil; Anglo-Saxon, mycel; Old Norse, mickill; Scotch, muckle and mickle (all ending in l): Danish, megen, m.; meget, n.; Swedish, mycken, m.; myckett, n. (where no l is found). Such is the adjectival form of the positive, rarely found in the Modern Gothic languages, being replaced in German by gross, in English by great, in Danish by stor. The adverbial forms are mioek and mioeg, Norse; much, English. It is remarkable that this last form is not found in Anglo-Saxon, being replaced by s[^a]re, Germ, sehr.--Grimm, D. G. iii. 608.

The adverbial and the Norse forms indicate that the l is no part of the original word. Comparison with other Indo-European languages gives us the same circumstance: Sanskrit, maha; Latin, mag-nus; Greek, [Greek: megas] (megas).

There is in Moeso-Gothic the comparative form m['a]iza, and there is no objection to presuming a longer form, magiza; since in the Greek form [Greek: meizon], compared with [Greek: megas], there {269} is a similar disappearance of the g. In the Old High German we find m[^e]ro, corresponding with m['a]iza, Moeso-Gothic, and with more, English.

Mickle (replaced by great) expresses size; much, quantity; many, number. The words more and most apply equally to number and quantity. I am not prepared either to assert or to deny that many, in Anglo-Saxon maenig, is from the same root with much. Of the word m[^a] notice has already been taken. Its later form, moe, occurs as late as Queen Elizabeth, with an adjectival as well as an adverbial sense.

s. 321. Little, less.--Like much and more, these words are in an etymological relation to each other. Moeso-Gothic, leitils; Old High German, luzil; Old Saxon, luttil; Anglo-Saxon, lytel; Middle High German, luetzel; Old Norse, l[^i]till. In these forms we have the letter l. Old High German Provincial, luz['i]c; Old Frisian, litich; Middle Dutch, luttik; Swedish, liten; Danish, liden.--Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 611. From these we find that the l is either no part of the original word, or one that is easily got rid of. In Swedish and Danish there are the forms lille and liden; whilst in the neuter form, lidt, the d is unpronounced. Even the word liden the Danes have a tendency to pronounce leen. My own notion is that these changes leave it possible for less to be derived from the root of little. According to Grimm, the Anglo-Saxon laessa is the Gothic lasiv[^o]za, the comparative of lasivs=weak.--Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 611. In Anglo-Saxon there was the adjectival form laessa, and the adverbial form laes. In either case we have the form s.

s. 322. 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. The fact that in the English language the words father and farther are, for the most part, pronounced alike, is the key to the forms near and nearer. {270}

s. 323. Farther.--Anglo-Saxon feor, fyrre, fyrrest. The th seems euphonic, inserted by the same process that gives the [delta] in [Greek: andros].

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

Languages have a comparative without a superlative degree; no language has a superlative degree without having also a comparative one.

s. 325. In Moeso-Gothic sp[^e]dists means last, and sp[^e]diza=later. Of the word sp[^e]dists 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 into the Indo-European tongues after the establishment of the comparative, and before the change of -s into -r. I give no opinion as to the truth of this theory.

* * * * *

{271}

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XI. THE SUPERLATIVE DEGREE

s. 326. The history of the superlative form, accurately parallel with what has been stated of the comparative, is as follows:--

In Sanskrit there is, 1. the form tama, 2. the form ishta; the first being the commonest. The same is the case in the Zend.

Each of these appears again in the Greek. The first, as [Greek: tat] (tat), in [Greek: leptotatos] (leptotatos); the second, as [Greek: ist] (ist), in [Greek: oiktistos] (oiktistos). For certain reasons, Grimm thinks that the tat stands for tamt, or tant.

In Latin, words like intimus, extimus, ultimus, preserve im; whilst venustus, vetustus, and robustus, are considered as positives, preserving the superlative form -st.

Just as in inferus and nuperus, there was the ejection of the t in the comparative ter, so in infimus, nigerrimus, &c., is there the ejection of the same letter in the superlative tim.

This gives us, as signs of the superlative, 1. tm; 2. st; 3. m, t being lost; 4. t, m being lost.

Of the first and last of these, there are amongst the true superlatives, in English, no specimens.

Of the third, there is a specimen in the Anglo-Saxon se forma, the first, from the root fore, as compared with the Latin primus, and the Lithuanic pirmas.

The second, st (wise, wisest), is the current termination.

Of the English superlatives, the only ones that demand a detailed examination are those that are generally despatched without difficulty; viz., the words in most; such as midmost, foremost, &c. The current view is the one adopted by Rask in his Anglo-Saxon Grammar (s. 133), viz., that they are {272} compound words, formed from simple ones by the addition of the superlative term most. Grimm's view is opposed to this. In appreciating Grimm's view, we must bear in mind the phenomena of excess of expression; at the same time we must not depart from the current theory without duly considering the fact stated by Rask; which is, that we have in Icelandic the forms naermeir, fjaermeir, &c., nearer, and farther, most unequivocally compounded of near and more, and of far and more.

Let especial notice be taken of the Moeso-Gothic forms fruma, first; aftuma, last; and of the Anglo-Saxon forms forma, aftema, aftermost; ufema, upmost; hindema, hindmost; midema, midmost; innema, inmost; [^u]tema, outmost; sidhema, last; latema, last; nidhema, nethermost. These account for the m.

Add to this, with an excess of expression, the letters st. This accounts for the whole form, as mid-m-ost, in-m-ost, &c. Such is Grimm's view.

Furthermost, innermost, hindermost.--Here there is a true addition of most, and an excess of inflection, a superlative form being added to a word in the comparative degree.

Former.--Here, as stated before, a comparative sign is added to a word in the superlative degree.

s. 327. The combination st occurs in other words besides those of the superlative degree; amongst others, in certain adverbs and prepositions, as among, amongst; while, whilst; between, betwixt.--Its power here has not been well explained.

* * * * *

{273}

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XII. OF THE CARDINAL NUMBERS

s. 328. In one sense the cardinal numbers form no part of a work on etymology. They are single words, apparently simple, and, as such, appertaining to a dictionary rather than to a grammar.

In another sense they are strictly etymological. They are the basis of the ordinals, which are formed from them by derivation. Furthermore, some of them either have, or are supposed to have, certain peculiarities of form which can be accounted for only by considering them derivatives, and that of a very peculiar kind.

s. 329. It is an ethnological fact, that the numerals are essentially the same throughout the whole Indo-European class of languages. The English three is the Latin tres, the Sanskrit tri, &c. In the Indo-European languages the numerals agree, even when many common terms differ.

And it is also an ethnological fact, that in a great many other groups of languages the numerals differ, even when many of the common terms agree. This is the case with many of the African and American dialects. Languages alike in the common terms for common objects differ in respect to the numerals.

What is the reason for this inconsistency in the similarity or dissimilarity of the numerals as compared with the similarity or dissimilarity of other words? I believe that the following distinction leads the way to it:--

The word two=2, absolutely and unequivocally, and in a primary manner.

The word pair also=2; but not absolutely, not unequivocally, and only in a secondary manner. {274}

Hence the distinction between absolute terms expressive of number, and secondary terms expressive of number.

When languages separate from a common stock before the use of certain words is fixed as absolute, there is room for considerable latitude in the choice of numerals; e.g., whilst with one tribe the word pair=two, another tribe may use the word couple, a third brace, and so on. In this case dialects that agree in other respects may differ in respect to their numerals.

When, on the other hand, languages separate from a common stock after the meaning of such a word as two has been fixed absolutely, there is no room for latitude; and the numerals agree where the remainder of the language differs.

1. One=unus, Latin; [Greek: heis] ([Greek: hen]), Greek.

2. Two=duo, [Greek: duo].

3. Three=tres, [Greek: treis].

4. Four=quatuor, [Greek: tettara]. This is apparently problematical. Nevertheless, the assumed changes can be verified by the following forms:--

[alpha]. Fidvor, Moeso-Gothic. To be compared with quatuor.

[beta]. [Greek: Pisures], Aeolic. Illustrates the change between [tau]- and [pi]- (allied to f-), within the pale of the classical languages.

5. Five=quinque, [Greek: pente]. Verified by the following forms:--

[alpha]. [Greek: Pempe], Aeolic Greek.

[beta]. Pump, Welsh. These account for the change from the n + t in [Greek: pente] to m + p.

[gamma]. Fimf, Moeso-Gothic; fuenf, Modern High German.

[delta]. Fem, Norse.

The change from the [pi]- of [Greek: pente] to the qu- of quinque is the change so often quoted by Latin and Celtic scholars between p and k: [Greek: hippos], [Greek: hikkos], equus.

6. Six=[Greek: hex], sex.

7. Seven=[Greek: hepta], septem.

This form is difficult. The Moeso-Gothic form is sibun, without a -t-; the Norse, syv, without either -t- or -n (=-m). A doubtful explanation of the form seven, &c., will be found in the following chapter. {275}

8. Eight=[Greek: okto], octo.

9. Nine=[Greek: ennea], novem. The Moeso-Gothic form is nigun, the Icelandic niu. In the Latin novem the v=the g of nigun. In the English and Greek it is wanting. The explanation of the -n and -m will be found in the following chapter.

10. Ten=[Greek: deka], decem. The Moeso-Gothic form is tihun; wherein the h=the c of decem and the [kappa] of [Greek: deka]. The Icelandic form is tiu, and, like [Greek: deka], is without the -n (or -m). The hypothesis as to the -m or -n will be given in the next chapter.

11. Eleven. By no means the equivalent to undecim=1 + 10.

[alpha]. The e is ein=one. _Ein_lif, ein-lef, _ei_lef, _ei_lf, _e_lf, Old High German; _and_lova, Old Frisian; end-leofan, _end_lufan, Anglo-Saxon. This is universally admitted.

[beta]. The -lev- is a modification of the root laib-an=manere=to stay=to be over. Hence eleven=one over (ten). This is not universally admitted.

[gamma]. The -n has not been well accounted for. It is peculiar to the Low Germanic dialects.--Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 946.

12. Twelve=the root two + the root laib=two over (ten). Tvalif, Moeso-Gothic; zuelif, Old High German; toll, Swedish. The same doubts that apply to the doctrine of the -lv- in eleven representing the root -laib, apply to the -lv- in twelve.--Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 946.

13. Thirteen=3 + 10. So on till twenty.

30. Thirty=3 x 10, or three decads. This difference in the decimal power of the syllables -teen and -ty is illustrated by--

[alpha]. The Moeso-Gothic.--Here we find the root tig- used as a true substantive, equivalent in form as well as power to the Greek [Greek: dek-as]. Tv['a]im tigum thusandjom=duobus decadibus myriadum. (Luke xiv. 31.) J[^e]r[^e] thrij[^e] tigiv['e]=annorum duarum decadum. (Luke iii. 23.) thrins tiguns silubrinaize=tres decadas argenteorum. (Matthew xxvii. 3, 9.)--Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 948. {276}

[beta]. The Icelandic.--"The numbers from 20 to 100 are formed by means of the numeral substantive, tigr, declined like vidhr, and naturally taking the word which it numerically determines in the genitive case.

Nom. Fj['o]rir tigir manna = four tens of men. Gen. Fjoegurra tiga manna = of four tens of men. Dat. Fj['o]rum tigum manna = to four tens of men. Acc. Fj['o]ra tiga manna = four tens of men.

"This is the form of the inflection in the best and oldest MSS. A little later was adopted the indeclinable form tigi, which was used adjectivally."--Det Oldnorske Sprogs Grammatik, af P. A. Munch, og C. B. Unger, Christiania, 1847.

s. 330. Generally speaking, the greater part of the numerals are undeclined, even in inflected languages. 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 cases, there is no reason why all the numerals should not be as fully inflected as the Latin unus, una, unum, unius.

* * * * *

{277}

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us