XIII. ON THE ORDINAL NUMBERS
s. 331. The remarks at the close of the last chapter but one indicated the fact that superlative forms were found beyond the superlative degree. The present chapter shows that they are certainly found in some, and possibly in all of the ordinal numbers.
First.--In Moeso-Gothic, fruma, frumist; in Anglo-Saxon, forma, fyrmest; in Old High German, vurist; in Old Norse, fyrst; in New High German, erst. In all these words, whether in m, in mst, or in st, there is a superlative form. The same is the case with pratamas, Sanskrit; fratemas, Zend; [Greek: protos], Greek; primus, Latin; primas, Lithuanic. Considering that, compared with the other ordinals, the ordinal of one is a sort of superlative, this is not at all surprising.
Between the words one and first there is no etymological relation. This is the case in most languages. Unus, primus, [Greek: heis], [Greek: protos], &c.
s. 332. Second.--Between this word and its cardinal, two, there is no etymological connexion. This is the case in many, if not in most, languages. In Latin the cardinal is duo, and the ordinal secundus, a gerund of sequor, and meaning the following. In Anglo-Saxon the form was se odher=the other. In the present German, the ordinal is zweite, a word etymologically connected with the cardinal zwei=two.
Old High German, andar; Old Saxon, othar; Old Frisian, other; Middle Dutch, ander. In all these words we have the comparative form -ter; and considering that, compared with the word first, the word second is a sort of {278} comparative, there is nothing in the circumstance to surprise us. The Greek forms [Greek: deuteros] and [Greek: heteros], the Latin alter, and the Lithuanic antras, are the same.
s. 333. With the third ordinal number begin difficulties: 1. in respect to their form; 2. in respect to the idea conveyed by them.
1. Comparing third, fourth, fifth, &c., with three, four, and five, the formation of the ordinal from the cardinal form may seem simply to consist in the addition of d or th. Such, however, is far from being the case.
2. Arguing from the nature of the first two ordinals, namely, the words first and second, of which one has been called a superlative and the other a comparative, it may seem a simple matter to associate, in regard to the rest, the idea of ordinalism with the idea of comparison. A plain distinction, however, will show that the case of the first two ordinals is peculiar. First is a superlative, not as compared with its cardinal, one, but as compared with the other numerals. Second, or other, is a comparative, not as compared with its cardinal, two, but as compared with the numeral one. Now it is very evident, that, if the other ordinals be either comparatives or superlatives, they must be so, not as compared with one another, but as compared with their respective cardinals. Sixth, to be anything like a superlative, must be so when compared with six.
s. 334. Now there are, in etymology, two ways of determining the affinity of ideas. The first is the metaphysical, the second the empirical, method.
This is better than that, is a sentence which the pure metaphysician may deal with. He may first determine that there is in it the idea of comparison; and next that the comparison is the comparison between two objects, and no more than two. This idea he may compare with others. He may determine, that, with a sentence like this is one and that is the other, it has something in common; since both assert something concerning one out of two objects. Upon this connexion in sense he is at liberty to reason. He is at liberty to conceive that in certain languages words expressive {279} of allied ideas may also be allied in form. Whether such be really the case, he leaves to etymologists to decide.
The pure etymologist proceeds differently. He assumes the connexion in meaning from the connexion in form. All that he at first observes is, that words like other and better have one and the same termination. For this identity he attempts to give a reason, and finds that he can best account for it by presuming some affinity in sense. Whether there be such an affinity, he leaves to the metaphysician to decide. This is the empirical method.
At times the two methods coincide, and ideas evidently allied are expressed by forms evidently allied.
At times the connexion between the ideas is evident; but the connexion between the forms obscure: and vice vers[^a]. Oftener, however, the case is as it is with the subjects of the present chapter. Are the ideas of ordinalism in number, and of superlativeness in degree, allied? The metaphysical view, taken by itself, gives us but unsatisfactory evidence; whilst the empirical view, taken by itself, does the same. The two views, however, taken together, give us evidence of the kind called cumulative, which is weak or strong according to its degree.
Compared with three, four, &c., all the ordinals are formed by the addition of th, or t; and th, dh, t, or d, is the ordinal sign, not only in English, but in the other Gothic languages. But, as stated before, this is not the whole of the question.
The letter t is found, with a similar power, 1. In Latin, as in tertius, quartus, quintus, sextus; 2. Greek, as in [Greek: tritos] (tritos), [Greek: tetartos] (tetartos), [Greek: pemptos] (pemptos), [Greek: hektos] (hectos), [Greek: ennatos] (ennatos), [Greek: dekatos] (dekatos); 3. Sanskrit, as in tritiyas, ['c]atu['r]tas, shasht'as=third, fourth, sixth; 4. In Zend, as in thrityas=the third, haptathas=the seventh; 5. In Lithuanic, as ketwirtas=fourth, penktas=fifth, szesztas=sixth; 6. In Old Slavonic, as in c['e]tvertyi=fourth, pjatyi=fifth, shestyi=sixth, devjatyi=ninth, desjatyi=tenth. Speaking more generally, it is found, with a similar force, throughout the Indo-European stock.
The following forms indicate a fresh train of reasoning. {280} The Greek [Greek: hepta] (hepta), and Icelandic sjau, have been compared with the Latin septem and the Anglo-Saxon seofon. In the Greek and Icelandic there is the absence, in the Latin and Anglo-Saxon the presence, of a final liquid (m or n).
Again, the Greek forms [Greek: ennea] (ennea), and the Icelandic n['i]u=nine, have been compared with the Latin novem and the Gothic nigun.
Thirdly, the Greek [Greek: deka] (deka), and the Icelandic t['i]u, have been compared with the Latin decem and the Gothic tihun=ten.
These three examples indicate the same circumstance; viz. that the m or n, in seven, nine, and ten, is no part of the original word.
s. 335. The following hypotheses account for these phenomena; viz. that the termination of the ordinals is the superlative termination -tam: that in some words, like the Latin septimus, the whole form is preserved; that in some, as in [Greek: tetartos]=fourth, the t only remains; and that in others, as in decimus, the m alone remains. Finally, that in seven, nine, and ten, the final liquid, although now belonging to the cardinal, was once the characteristic of the ordinal number. For a fuller exhibition of these views, see Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 640.
* * * * *
{281}
XIV. THE ARTICLES
s. 336. In the generality of grammars the definite article the, and the indefinite article an, are the very first parts of speech that are considered. This is exceptionable. So far are they from being essential to language, that, in many dialects, they are wholly wanting. In Greek there is no indefinite, in Latin there is neither an indefinite nor a definite article. In the former language they say [Greek: aner tis]=a certain man: in the Latin the words filius patris mean equally the son of the father, a son of a father, a son of the father, or the son of a father. In Moeso-Gothic and in Old Norse, there is an equal absence of the indefinite article; or, at any rate, if there be one at all, it is a different word from what occurs in English. In these the Greek [Greek: tis] is expressed by the Gothic root sum.
Now, as it is very evident that, as far as the sense is concerned, the words some man, a certain man, and a man, are, there or thereabouts, the same, an exception may be taken to the statement that in Greek and Moeso-Gothic there is no indefinite article. It may, in the present state of the argument, be fairly said that the words sum and [Greek: tis] are pronouns with a certain sense, and that a and an are no more; consequently, that in Greek the indefinite article is [Greek: tis], in Moeso-Gothic sum, and in English a or an,
A distinction, however, may be made. In the expression [Greek: aner tis] (anaer tis)=a certain man, or a man, and in the expression sum mann, the words sum and [Greek: tis] preserve their natural and original meaning; whilst in a man and an ox the words a and an are used in a secondary sense. These words, as is currently known, are one and the same, the n, in the form a, being ejected through a euphonic process. They are, moreover, the same words with the numeral one; {282} Anglo-Saxon, ['a]n; Scotch, ane. Now, between the words a man and one man, there is a difference in meaning; the first expression being the most indefinite. Hence comes the difference between the English and the Moeso-Gothic expressions. In the one the word sum has a natural, in the other the word an has a secondary power.
The same reasoning applies to the word the. Compared with a man, the words the man are very definite. Compared, however, with the words that man, they are the contrary. Now, just as an and a have arisen out of the numeral one, so has the arisen out of the demonstrative pronoun thaet, or at least from some common root. It will be remembered that in Anglo-Saxon there was a form the, undeclined, and common to all the cases of all the numbers.
In no language in its oldest stage is there ever a word giving, in its primary sense, the ideas of a and the. As tongues become modern, some noun with a similar sense is used to express them. In the course of time a change of form takes place, corresponding to the change of meaning; e. g., one becomes an, and afterwards a. Then it is that articles become looked upon as separate parts of speech, and are dealt with accordingly. No invalidation of this statement is drawn from the Greek language. Although the first page of the etymology gives us [Greek: ho], [Greek: he], [Greek: to] (ho, hae, to), as the definite articles, the corresponding page in the syntax informs us, that, in the oldest stage of the language, [Greek: ho] (ho)=the, had the power of [Greek: houtos] (howtos)=this.
The origin of the articles seems uniform. In German ein, in Danish en, stand to one in the same relation that an does. The French un, Italian and Spanish uno, are similarly related to unus=one.
And as, in English the, in German der, in Danish den, come from the demonstrative pronouns, so in the classical languages are the French le, the Italian il and lo, and the Spanish el, derived from the Latin demonstrative, ille.
In his Outlines of Logic, the present writer has given reasons for considering the word no (as in no man) an article.
That the, in expressions like all the more, all the better, &c., is no article, has already been shown.
* * * * *
{283}
XV. DIMINUTIVES, AUGMENTATIVES, AND PATRONYMICS
s. 337. Compared with the words lamb, man, and hill, the words lambkin, mannikin, and hillock convey the idea of comparative smallness or diminution. Now, as the word hillock=a little hill differs in form from hill we have in English a series of diminutive forms, or diminutives.
The English diminutives may be arranged according to a variety of principles. Amongst others:
1. According to their form.--The word hillock is derived from hill, by the addition of a syllable. The word tip is derived from top, by the change of a vowel.
2. According to their meaning.--In the word hillock there is the simple expression of comparative smallness in size. In the word doggie for dog, lassie for lass, the addition of the -ie makes the word not so much a diminutive as a term of tenderness or endearment. The idea of smallness, accompanied, perhaps, with that of neatness, generally carries with it the idea of approbation. The word clean in English, means, in German, little=kleine. The feeling of protection which is extended to small objects engenders the notion of endearment. In Middle High German we have vaterl[`i]n=little father, muetterl[`i]n=little mother. In Middle High German there is the diminutive sunnel[`i]n; and the French soleil is from the Latin form solillus. In Slavonic the word slunze=sun is a diminutive form.
The Greek word [Greek: meiosis] (mei[^o]sis) means diminution; the Greek word [Greek: hupokorisma] means an endearing expression. Hence we get names for the two kinds of diminutives; viz., the term meiotic for the true diminutives, and the term hypocoristic for the diminutives of endearment.--Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 664. {284}
3. According to their historical origin.--The syllable -ock, as in hillock, is of Anglo-Saxon and Gothic origin. The -et, as in lancet, is of French and classical origin.
4. According as they affect proper names or common names.--Hawkin, Perkin, Wilkin, &c. In these words we have the diminutives of Hal, Peter, Will, &c.
s. 338. The diminutive forms of Gothic origin are the first to be considered.
1. Those formed by a change of vowel.--Tip, from top. The relation of the feminine to the masculine is allied to the ideas conveyed by many diminutives. Hence in the word kit, from cat, it is doubtful whether there be meant a female cat or a little cat. Kid is a diminutive form of goat.
2. Those formed by the addition of a letter or letters.--Of the diminutive characteristics thus formed the commonest, beginning from the simpler forms, are
Ie.--Almost peculiar to the Lowland Scotch; as daddie, lassie, minnie, wifie, mousie, doggie, boatie, &c.--Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 686.
Ock.--Bullock, hillock.
Kin.--Lambkin, mannikin, ladikin, &c. As is seen above, common in proper names.
En.--Chicken, kitten, from cock, cat. The notion of diminution, if indeed that be the notion originally conveyed, lies not in the -en, but in the vowel. In the word chicken, from cock, observe the effect of the small vowel on the c.
The consideration of words like duckling and gosling is purposely deferred.
The chief diminutive of classical origin is--
Et, as in trumpet, lancet, pocket; the word pock, as in meal-pock=a meal-bag, being found in the Scottish. From the French -ette, as in caissette, poulette.
The forms -rel, as in cockerel, pickerel, and -let, as in streamlet, require a separate consideration. The first has nothing to do with the Italian forms acquerella and coserella--themselves, perhaps, of Gothic, rather than of classical origin.
In the Old High-German there are a multitude of diminutive forms in -l; as ouga=an eye, ougili=a little eye, lied=a song, liedel=a little song. "In Austria and Bavaria {285} are the forms mannel, weibel, hundel, &c., or mannl, weibl, hundl, &c. In some districts there is an r before the l, as madarl=a little maid, muadarl=a little mother, briadarl=a little brother, &c. This is occasioned by the false analogy of the diminutives of the derived form in r."--Deutsche Grammatik, iii. p. 674. This indicates the nature of words like cockerel.
Even in English the diminutive power of -el can be traced in the following words:--
Soare=a deer in its third year. Sor-rel=a deer in its second year.--See Love's Labour Lost, with the note.
Tiercel=a small sort of hawk, one-third less (tierce) than the common kind.
Kantle=small corner, from cant=a corner.--Henry IV.
Hurdle; in Dutch horde; German, hurde. Hording, without the -l, is used in an allied sense by builders in English.
In the words in point we must assume an earlier form, cocker and piker, to which the diminutive form -el is affixed. If this be true, we have, in English, representatives of the diminutive form -l, so common in the High Germanic dialects. Wolfer=a wolf, hunker=a haunch, flitcher=a flitch, teamer=a team, fresher=a frog,--these are north country forms of the present English.[43]
The termination -let, as in streamlet, seems to be double, and to consist of the Gothic diminutive -l, and the French diminutive -t.
s. 339. Augmentatives.--Compared with capello=a hat, the Italian word capellone=a great hat is an augmentative. The augmentative forms, pre-eminently common in the Italian language, often carry with them a depreciating sense.
The termination -rd (in Old High German, -hart), as in drunkard, braggart, laggard, stinkard, carries with it this idea of depreciation. In buzzard, and reynard, the name of the fox, it is simply augmentative. In wizard, from witch, it has the power of a masculine form.
The termination -rd, taken from the Gothic, appears in {286} the modern languages of classical origin: French, vieillard; Spanish, codardo. From these we get at, second-hand, the word coward.--Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 707.
The word sweetheart is a derived word of this sort, rather than a compound word; since in Old High German and Middle High German, we have the corresponding form liebhart. Now the form for heart is in German not hart, but herz.
Words like braggadocio, trombone, balloon, being words of foreign origin, prove nothing as to the further existence of augmentative forms in English.
s. 340. Patronymics.--In the Greek language the notion of lineal descent, in other words, the relation of the son to the father, is expressed by a particular termination; as, [Greek: Peleus] (Peleus), [Greek: Peleides] (Peleidaes), the son of Peleus. It is very evident that this mode of expression is very different from either the English form Johnson, or Gaelic MacDonald. In these last-named words, the words son and Mac mean the same thing; so that Johnson and MacDonald are not derived, but compound words. This Greek way of expressing descent is peculiar, and the words wherein it occurs are classed together by the peculiar name patronymic, from pataer=a father, and onoma=a name. Is there anything in English corresponding to the Greek patronymics? It was for the sake of this question that the consideration of the termination -ling, as in duckling, &c., was deferred.
The termination -ling, like the terminations -rel and -let, is compound. Its simpler form is -ing. This, from being affixed to the derived forms in -l, has become -ling.
In Anglo-Saxon the termination -ing is as truly patronymic as [Greek: -ides] is in Greek. In the Bible-translation the son of Elisha is called Elising. In the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle occur such genealogies as the following:--Ida waes Eopping, Eoppa [^E]sing, [^E]sa Inging, Inga Angenviting, Angenvit Alocing, Aloc Beonocing, Beonoc Branding, Brand Baeldaeging, Baeldaeg V['o]dening, V['o]den Fridhowulfing, Fridhowulf Finning, Finn Godwulfing, Godwulf Geating=Ida was the son of Eoppa, Eoppa of Esing, Esing of Inga, Inga of Angenvit, {287} Angenvit of Aloc, Aloc of Beonoc, Beonoc of Brand, Brand of Baeldag, Baeldag of Woden, Woden of Fridhowulf, Fridhowulf of Finn, Finn of Godwulf, Godwulf of Geat.--In Greek, [Greek: Ida en Eoppeides, Eoppa Eseides, Esa Ingeides, Inga Angenphiteides], &c. In the plural number these forms denote the race of; as Scyldingas=the Scyldings, or the race of Scyld, &c. Edgar Atheling means Edgar of the race of the nobles. The primary of -ing and -l-ing is descent or relationship; from these comes the idea of youth and endearment, and thence the true diminutive idea. In darling, stripling, duckling, gosling (pr. gesling), kitling (pr. for kitten), nestling, yearling, chickling, fatling, fledgling, firstling, the idea of descent still remains. In hireling the idea of diminution is accompanied with the idea of contempt. In changeling we have a Gothic termination and a classical root. See, for the full exposition of this view, Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 349-364, iii. 682.
In the opening speech of Marlow's Jew of Malta we have the following lines:--
Here have I pursed their paltry silverlings. Fie! what a trouble 'tis to count this trash! Well fare the Arabs, that so richly pay For what they traffick in with wedge of gold.
The word silverlings has troubled the commentators. Burst their silverbins has been proposed as the true reading. The word, however, is a true diminutive, as siluparlinc, silarbarling=a small silver coin, Old High German.
A good chapter on the English diminutives may be seen in the Cambridge Philological Museum, vol. i. p. 679.
* * * * *
{288}
XVI. GENTILE FORMS
s. 341. These have been illustrated by Mr. Guest in the Transactions of the Philological Society.
The only word in the present English that requires explanation is the name of the principality Wales.
1. The form is plural, however much the meaning may be singular; so that the -s in Wale-s is the -s in fathers, &c.
2. It has grown out of the Anglo-Saxon from wealhas=foreigners, the name by which the Welsh are spoken of by the Germans of England, just as the Italians are called Welsh by the Germans of Germany: wal-nuts=foreign nuts.
3. The transfer of the name of the people inhabiting a certain country to the country so inhabited, was one of the commonest processes in both Anglo-Saxon and Old English.--Guest, Phil. Trans.
* * * * *
{289}
Chapter XVII
ON THE CONNEXION BETWEEN THE NOUN AND VERB, AND ON THE INFLECTION OF THE INFINITIVE MOOD.
s. 342. In order to understand clearly the use of the so-called infinitive mood in English, it is necessary to bear in mind two facts, one a matter of logic, the other a matter of history.
In the way of logic, the difference between a noun and a verb is less marked than it is in the way of grammar.
Grammatically, the contrast is considerable. The inflection of nouns expresses the ideas of sex as denoted by gender, and of relation in place as denoted by cases. That of verbs rarely expresses sex, and never position. On the other hand, however, it expresses what no noun ever does or can express; e.g., the relation of the agent to the individual speaking, by means of person; the time in which acts take place, by means of tense; and the conditions of their occurrence, by means of mood.
The idea of number is the only one that, on a superficial view, is common to these two important parts of speech.
Logically, the contrast is inconsiderable. A noun denotes an object of which either the senses or the intellect can take cognizance, and a verb does no more. To move=motion, to rise=rising, to err=error, to forgive=forgiveness. The only difference between the two parts of speech is this, that, whereas a noun may express any object whatever, verbs can only express those objects which consist in an action. And it is this superadded idea of action that superadds to the verb the phenomena of tense, mood, person, and voice; in other words, the phenomena of conjugation.
s. 343. A noun is a word capable of declension only. A {290} verb is a word capable of declension and conjugation also. The fact of verbs being declined as well as conjugated must be remembered. The participle has the declension of a noun adjective, the infinite mood the declension of a noun substantive. Gerunds and supines, in languages where they occur, are only names for certain cases of the verb.
Although in all languages the verb is equally capable of declension, it is not equally declined. The Greeks, for instance, used forms like
[Greek: to phthonein]=invidia. [Greek: tou phthonein]=invidiae. [Greek: en toi phthonein]=in invidia.
oftener than the Romans. The fact of there being an article in Greek may account for this.
s. 344. Returning, however, to the illustration of the substantival character of the so-called infinitive mood, we may easily see--
[alpha]. The name of any action may be used without any mention of the agent. Thus, we may speak of the simple fact of walking or moving, independently of any specification of the walker or mover.
[beta]. That, when actions are spoken of thus indefinitely, the idea of either person or number has no place in the conception; from which it follows that the so-called infinitive mood must be at once impersonal, and without the distinction of singular, dual, and plural.
[gamma]. That, nevertheless, the ideas of time and relation in space have place in the conception. We can think of a person being in the act of striking a blow, of his having been in the act of striking a blow, or of his being about to be in the act of striking a blow. We can also think of a person being in the act of doing a good action, or of his being from the act of doing a good action.
This has been written to show that verbs of languages in general are as naturally declinable as nouns. What follows will show that the verbs of the Gothic languages in particular were actually declined, and that fragments of this declension remain in the present English.
s. 345. The inflection of the verb in its impersonal (or {291} infinitive form) consisted, in full, of three cases, a nominative (or accusative), a dative, and a genitive. The genitive is put last, because its occurrence in the Gothic language is the least constant.
In Anglo-Saxon the nominative (or accusative) ended in -an:
Lufian =to love=amare. Baernan=to burn=urere. Syllan =to give=dare.
Be it observed, that the -en in words like strengthen, &c., is a derivational termination, and by no means a representation of the Anglo-Saxon infinitive inflection. The Anglo-Saxon infinitive inflection is lost in the present English, except in certain provincial dialects.
In Anglo-Saxon the dative of the infinitive verb ended in -nne, and was (as a matter of syntax) generally, perhaps always, preceded by the preposition to.
To lufienne =ad amandum. To baernenne=ad urendum. To syllanne =ad dandum.
The genitive, ending in -es, occurs only in Old High German and Modern High German, pl[^a]sannes, weinnenes.
s. 346. With these preliminaries we can take a clear view of the English infinitives. They exist under two forms, and are referable to a double origin.
1. The independent form.--This is used after the words can, may, shall, will, and some others, as, I can speak, I may go, I shall come, I will move. Here there is no preposition, and the origin of the infinitive is from the form in -an.
2. The prepositional form.--This is used after the majority of English verbs, as I wish to speak, I mean to go, I intend to come, I determine to move. Here we have the preposition to and the origin of the infinitive is from the form in -nne.
Expressions like to err=error, to forgive=forgiveness, in lines like
To err is human, to forgive divine,
are very remarkable. They exhibit the phenomena of a nominative case having grown not only out of a dative but out of a dative plus its governing preposition.
* * * * *
{292}
XVIII. ON DERIVED VERBS
s. 347. Of number, person, mood, tense, and conjugation, special notice is taken in their respective chapters. Of the divisions of verbs into active and passive, transitive and intransitive, unless there be an accompanying change of form, etymology takes no cognisance. The forces of the auxiliary verbs, and the tenses to which they are equivalent, are also points of syntax rather than of etymology.
Four classes, however, of derived verbs, as opposed to simple, especially deserve notice.
I. Those ending in -en; as soften, whiten, strengthen, &c. Here it has been already remarked that the -en is a derivational affix; and not a representative of the Anglo-Saxon infinitive form -an (as lufian, baernan=to love, to burn), and the Old English -en (as tellen, loven).
II. Transitive verbs derived from intransitives by a change of the vowel of the root.
Primitive Intransitive Form. Derived Transitive Form. Rise Raise. Lie Lay. Sit Set. Fall Fell. Drink Drench.
In Anglo-Saxon these words were more numerous than they are at present. The following list is taken from the Cambridge Philological Museum, ii. 386.
Intrans. Infinitive. Trans. Infinitive. Yrnan, to run Aernan, to make to run. Byrnan, to burn Baernan, to make to burn. {293} Drincan, to drink Drencan, to drench. Sincan, to sink Sencan, to make to sink. Liegan, to lie Lecgan, to lay. Sittan, to sit Settan, to set. Dr['i]fan, to drift Draefan, to drive. Feallan, to fall Fyllan, to fell. Weallan, to boil Wyllan, to make to boil. Fleogan, to fly A-fligan, to put to flight. Beogan, to bow B['i]gan, to bend. Faran, to go Feran, to convey. Wacan, to wake Weccan, to awaken.
All these intransitives form their praeterite by a change of vowel, as sink, sank; all the transitives by the addition of d or t, as fell, fell'd.
III. Verbs derived from nouns by a change of accent; as to surv['e]y, from a s['u]rvey. For a fuller list see the Chapter on Derivation. Walker attributes the change of accent to the influence of the participial termination -ing. All words thus affected are of foreign origin.
IV. Verbs formed from nouns by changing a final sharp consonant into its corresponding flat one; as,
The use to use, pronounced uze. The breath to breathe -- breadhe. The cloth to clothe -- clodhe.
* * * * *
{294}
XIX. ON THE PERSONS
s. 348. Compared with the Latin, the Greek, the Moeso-Gothic, and almost all the ancient languages, there is, in English, in respect to the persons of the verbs, but a very slight amount of inflection. This may be seen by comparing the English word call with the Latin voco.
Sing. Plur. Sing. Plur. 1. Voc-o. Voc-amus. Call. Call. 2. Voc-as. Voc-atis. Call-est. Call. 3. Voc-at. Voc-ant. [44]Call-eth. Call.
Here the Latins have different forms for each different person, whilst the English have forms for two only; and even of these one (callest) is becoming obsolete. With the forms of voco marked in italics there is, in the current English, nothing correspondent.
In the word am, as compared with are and art, we find a sign of the first person singular.
In the old forms tellen, weren, &c., we have a sign of the plural number.
In the Modern English, the Old English, and the Anglo-Saxon, the peculiarities of our personal inflections are very great. This may be seen from the following tables of comparison:--
Present Tense, Indicative Mood. Moeso-Gothic. 1st person. 2nd person. 3rd person. Singular. S[^o]kja. S[^o]keis. S[^o]keith--seek. Plural. S[^o]kjam. S[^o]keith. S[^o]kjand.
{295} Old High German. Singular. Prennu. Prenn[^i]s. Prennit--burn. Plural. Prennames. Prennat. Prennant.
Icelandic. Singular. Kalla. Kallar. Kallar--call. Plural. Koellum. Kallith. Kalla.
Old Saxon. Singular. S[^o]kju. S[^o]k[^i]s. S[^o]k[^i]d--seek. Plural. S[^o]kjad. S[^o]kjad. S[^o]kjad.
Anglo-Saxon. Singular. Lufige. Lufast. Lufadh. Plural. Lufiadh. Lufiadh. Lufiadh.
Old English. Singular. Love. Lovest. Loveth. Plural. Loven. Loven. Loven.
Modern English. Singular. Love. Lovest. Loveth (or Loves). Plural. Love. Love. Love.
Herein remark; 1. the Anglo-Saxon addition of t in the second person singular; 2. the identity in form of the three persons of the plural number; 3. the change of -adh into -en in the Old English plural; 4. the total absence of plural forms in the Modern English; 5. the change of the th into s, in loveth and loves. These are points bearing especially upon the history of the English persons. The following points indicate a more general question.
1. The full form prennames in the newer Old High German, as compared with s['o]kjam in the old Moeso-Gothic.
2. The appearance of the r in Icelandic.
3. The difference between the Old Saxon and the Anglo-Saxon in the second person singular; the final t being absent in Old Saxon.
4. The respective powers of M in the first, of S in the second, and of T (or its allied sounds) in the third persons singular; {296} of MES in the first, of T (or its allied sounds) in the second, and of ND in the third persons plural. In this we have a regular expression of the persons by means of regular signs; and this the history of the personal terminations verifies.
s. 349. First person singular.--That the original sign of this person was M we learn from the following forms: dad[^a]mi, Sanskrit; dadh[^a]mi, Zend; [Greek: didomi], Greek; dumi, Lithuanic; damy, Slavonic=I give. The Latin language preserves it in sum and inquam, and in the first persons of tenses, like legam, legebam, legerem, legissem. The form im=I am occurs in Moeso-Gothic; and the words stom=I stand, lirnem=I shall learn, in Old High German. The word am is a fragmentary specimen of it in our own language.
Plural.--The original sign MES. Dadmas, Sanskrit; [Greek: didomes], afterwards [Greek: didomen], Greek; damus, Latin=we give. The current form in Old High German.
These forms in M may or may not be derived from the pronoun of the first person; m[^a], Sanskrit; me, Latin, English, &c.
Second person singular.--The original sign S. Dadasi, Sanskrit; [Greek: didos], Greek; das, Latin; dasi, Slavonic. Preserved in the Gothic languages.
Plural.--The original sign T, or an allied sound. Dadyata, Sanskrit; daidhy[^a]ta, Zend; [Greek: didote], Greek; datis, Latin; d[ou]kite, Lithuanic; dashdite, Slavonic=ye give. Current in the Gothic languages.
These forms in T and S may or may not be derived from the pronoun of the second person; tva, Sanskrit; [Greek: su], Greek; thou, English.
Third person singular.---The original sign T. Dadati, Sanskrit; dadh[^a]iti, Zend; [Greek: didoti], Old Greek; dat, Latin; d[ou]sti, Lithuanic; dasty, Slavonic=he gives. Preserved in the Gothic languages.
Plural.--The original sign NT. Dadenti, Zend; [Greek: didonti], afterwards [Greek: didousi], Greek; dant, Latin=they give. In Moeso-Gothic and Old High German.
The preceding examples are from Grimm and Bopp. To them add the Welsh form carant=they love, and the Persian budend=they are. {297}
The forms in T and NT may or may not be derived from the demonstrative pronoun ta, Saxon; [Greek: to], Greek; that, English, &c.
s. 350. The present state of the personal inflection in English, so different from that of the older languages, has been brought about by two processes.
I. Change of form.--^a) The ejection of -es in -mes, as in s[^o]kjam and koellum, compared with prennames; ^b) the ejection of -m, as in the first person singular, almost throughout; ^c) the change of -s into -r, as in the Norse kallar, compared with the Germanic s[^o]keis; ^d) the ejection of -d from -nd, as in loven (if this be the true explanation of that form) compared with prennant; ^e) the ejection of -nd, as in kalla; ^f) the addition of -t, as in lufast and lovest. In all these cases we have a change of form.
II. Confusion or extension.--In vulgarisms like I goes, I is, one person is used instead of another. In vulgarisms like I are, we goes, one number is used instead of another. In vulgarisms like I be tired, or if I am tired, one mood is used instead of another. In vulgarisms like I give for I gave, one tense is used for another. In all this there is confusion. There is also extension: since, in the phrase I is, the third person is used instead of the first; in other words, it is used with an extension of its natural meaning. It has the power of the third person + that of the first. In the course of time one person may entirely supplant, supersede, or replace another. The application of this is as follows:--
The only person of the plural number originally ending in dh is the second; as s['o]keith, prennat, kallith, lufiadh; the original ending of the first person being -mes, or -m, as prennames, s[^o]kjam, koellum. Now, in Anglo-Saxon, the first person ends in dh, as lufiadh. Has -m, or -mes, changed to dh, or has the second person superseded the first? The latter alternative seems the likelier.
s. 351. The detail of the persons seems to be as follows:--
I call, first person singular.--The word call is not one person more than another. It is the simple verb, wholly uninflected. It is very probable that the first person was the {298} one where the characteristic termination was first lost. In the Modern Norse language it is replaced by the second: Jeg taler=I speak, Danish.
Thou callest, second person singular.--The final -t appears throughout the Anglo-Saxon, although wanting in Old Saxon. In Old High German it begins to appear in Otfrid, and is general in Notker. In Middle High German and New High German it is universal.--Deutsche Grammatik, i. 1041. 857.
He calleth, or he calls, third person singular.--The -s in calls is the -th in calleth, changed. The Norse form kallar either derives its -r from the -th by way of change, or else the form is that of the second person replacing the first.
Lufiadh, Anglo-Saxon, first person plural.--The second person in the place of the first. The same in Old Saxon.
Lufiadh, Anglo-Saxon, third person plural.--Possibly changed from -ND, as in s[^o]kjand. More probably the second person.
Loven, Old English.--For all the persons of the plural. This form may be accounted for in three ways: 1. The -m of the Moeso-Gothic and High Old German became -n; as it is in the Middle and Modern German, where all traces of the original -m are lost. In this case the first person has replaced the other two. 2. The -nd may have become -n; in which case it is the third person that replaces the others. 3. The indicative form loven may have arisen out of a subjunctive one; since there was in Anglo-Saxon the form lufion, or lufian, subjunctive. In the Modern Norse languages the third person replaces the other two: Vi tale, I tale, de tale=we talk, ye talk, they talk.
s. 352. The person in -T.--Art, wast, wert, shalt, wilt. Here the second person singular ends, not in -st, but in -t. A reason for this (though not wholly satisfactory) we find in the Moeso-Gothic and the Icelandic.
In those languages the form of the person changes with the tense, and the second singular of the praeterite tense of one conjugation is, not -s, but -t; as Moeso-Gothic, sv[^o]r=I swore, sv[^o]rt=thou swarest, gr['a]ip=I griped, gr['a]ipt=thou gripedst; Icelandic, brannt=thou burnest, gaft=thou {299} gavest. In the same languages ten verbs are conjugated like praeterites. Of these, in each language, skal is one.
Moeso-Gothic.
Singular. Dual. Plural. 1. Skal. Skulu. Skulum. 2. Skalt. Skuluts. Skuluth. 3. Skall. Skuluts. Skulun.
Icelandic.
Singular. Plural. 1. Skall. Skulum. 2. Skalt. Skuludh. 3. Skal. Skulu.
s. 353. Thou spakest, thou brakest, thou sungest.[45]--In these forms there is a slight though natural anomaly. They belong to the class of verbs which form their praeterite by changing the vowel of the present; as sing, sang, &c. Now, all words of this sort in Anglo-Saxon formed their second singular praeterite, not in -st, but in -e; as th['u] funde=thou foundest, th['u] sunge=thou sungest. The English termination is derived from the present. Observe that this applies only to the praeterites formed by changing the vowel. Thou loved'st is Anglo-Saxon as well as English, viz., th['u] lufodest.
s. 354. In the northern dialects of the Anglo-Saxon the -dh of plurals like lufiadh=we love becomes -s. In the Scottish this change was still more prevalent:
The Scottes come that to this day Havys, and Scotland haldyn ay.
WINTOUN, 11. 9. 73.
James I. of England ends nearly all his plurals in -s.
* * * * *
{300}
XX. ON THE NUMBERS OF VERBS
s. 355. The inflection of the present tense, not only in Anglo-Saxon, but in several other languages as well, has been given in the preceding chapter. As compared with the present plural forms, we love, ye love, they love, both the Anglo-Saxon we lufiadh, ge lufiadh, hi lufiadh, and the Old English we loven, ye loven, they loven, have a peculiar termination for the plural number which the present language wants. In other words, the Anglo-Saxon and the Old English have a plural personal characteristic, whilst the Modern English has nothing to correspond with it.
The word personal is printed in italics. It does not follow, that, because there is no plural personal characteristic, there is also no plural characteristic.
There is no reason against the inflection of the word love running thus--I love, thou lovest, he loves; we lave, ye lave, they lave; in other words, there is no reason against the vowel of the root being changed with the number. In such a case there would be no personal inflection, though there would be a plural, or a numeral, inflection.
Now, in Anglo-Saxon, with a great number of verbs such a plural inflection not only actually takes place, but takes place most regularly. It takes place, however, in the past tense only. And this is the case in all the Gothic languages as well as in Anglo-Saxon. Amongst the rest, in--
Moeso-Gothic.
Sk['a]in, I shone; skinum, we shone. Sm['a]it, I smote; smitum, we smote. K['a]us, I chose; kusum, we chose. L['a]ug, I lied; lugum, we lied. Gab, I gave; g[^e]bum, we gave. At, I ate; ['e]tum, we ate. Stal, I stole; st[^e]lum, we stole. Qvam, I came; qv[^e]mum, we came.
{301}
Anglo-Saxon.
Arn, I ran; urnon, we run. Ongan, I began; ongunnon, we begun. Span, I span; spunnon, we spun. Sang, I sang; sungon, we sung. Swang, I swang; swungon, we swung. Dranc, I drank; druncon, we drunk. Sanc, I sank; suncon, we sunk. Sprang, I sprang; sprungon, we sprung. Swam, I swam; swummon, we swum. Rang, I rang; rungon, we rung.
In all the Anglo-Saxon words, it may be remarked that the change is from a to u, and that both the vowels are short, or dependent. Also, that the vowel of the present tense is i short; as swim, sing, &c. The Anglo-Saxon form of run is yrnan.
In the following words the change is from the Anglo-Saxon ['a] to the Anglo-Saxon [=i]. In English, the regularity of the change is obscured by a change of pronunciation.
B['a]t, I bit; biton, we bit. Sm['a]t, I smote; smiton, we smit.
From these examples the reader has himself drawn his inference; viz. that words like
Began, begun. Ran, run. Span, spun. Sang, sung. [46]Swang, swung. Sprang, sprung. Sank, sunk. Swam, swum. Rang, rung. [46]Bat, bit. Smote, smit. Drank, drunk, &c.,
generally called double forms of the past tense, were originally different numbers of the same tense, the forms in u, as swum, and the forms in i, bit, being plural.
* * * * *
{302}
XXI. ON MOODS
s. 356. The Anglo-Saxon infinitive has already been considered.
s. 357. Between the second plural imperative, and the second plural indicative, speak ye and ye speak, there is no difference of form. Between the second singular imperative speak, and the second singular indicative, speakest, there is a difference in form. Still, as the imperative form speak is distinguished from the indicative form speakest by the negation of a character rather than by the possession of one, it cannot be said that there is in English any imperative mood.
s. 358. If he speak, as opposed to if he speaks, is characterised by a negative sign only, and consequently is no true example of a subjunctive. Be, as opposed to am, in the sentence if it be so, is an uninflected word used in a limited sense, and consequently no true example of a subjunctive.
The only true subjunctive inflection in the English language is that of were and wert, as opposed to the indicative forms was and wast.
Indicative. | Subjunctive. Singular. Plural. | Singular. Plural. 1. I was. We were. | If I were. If we were. 2. Thou wast. Ye were. | If thou wert. If ye were. 3. He was. They were. | If he were. If they were.
* * * * *
{303}
XXII. ON TENSES IN GENERAL
s. 359. The nature of tenses in general is best exhibited by reference to the Greek; since in that language they are more numerous, and more strongly marked than elsewhere.
I strike, I struck.--Of these words, the first implies an action taking place at the time of speaking, the second marks an action that has already taken place.
These two notions of present and of past time, being expressed by a change of form, are true tenses. They are however, the only true tenses in our language. In I was beating, I have beaten, I had beaten, and I shall beat, a difference of time is expressed; but as it is expressed by a combination of words, and not by a change of form, no true tenses are constituted.
In Greek the case is different. [Greek: Tupto] (typt[^o])=I beat; [Greek: etupton] (etypton)=I was beating; [Greek: tupso] (typs[^o])=I shall beat; [Greek: etupsa] (etypsa)=I beat; [Greek: tetupha] (tetyfa)=I have beaten; [Greek: etetuphein] (etetyfein)=I had beaten. In these words we have, of the same mood, the same voice, and the same conjugation, six different tenses;[47] whereas, in English, there are but two. The forms [Greek: tetupha] and [Greek: etupsa] are so strongly marked, that we recognise them wheresoever they occur. The first is formed by a reduplication of the initial [tau], and, consequently, may be called the reduplicate form. As a tense it is called the perfect. In the form [Greek: etupsa] an [epsilon] is prefixed, and an [sigma] is added. In the allied language of Italy {304} the [epsilon] disappears, whilst the [sigma] (s) remains. [Greek: Etupsa] is said to be an aorist tense. Scripsi : scribo :: [Greek: etupsa] : [Greek: tupto].
s. 360. Now in the Latin language a confusion takes place between these two tenses. Both forms exist. They are used, however, indiscriminately. The aorist form has, besides its own, the sense of the perfect. The perfect has, besides its own, the sense of the aorist. In the following pair of quotations, vixi, the aorist form, is translated I have lived, while tetigit, the perfect form, is translated he touched.
Vixi, et quem dederat cursum Fortuna peregi; Et nunc magna mei sub terras ibit imago.--Aen. iv.
Ut primum alatis tetigit magalia plantis.--Aen. iv.
When a difference of form has ceased to express a difference of meaning, it has become superfluous. This is the case with the two forms in question. One of them may be dispensed with; and the consequence is, that, although in the Latin language both the perfect and the aorist forms are found, they are, with few exceptions, never found in the same word. Wherever there is the perfect, the aorist is wanting, and vice vers[^a]. The two ideas I have struck and I struck are merged into the notion of past time in general, and are expressed by one of two forms, sometimes by that of the Greek perfect, and sometimes by that of the Greek aorist. On account of this the grammarians have cut down the number of Latin tenses to five; forms like cucurri and vixi being dealt with as one and the same tense. The true view is, that in curro the aorist form is replaced by the perfect, and in vixi the perfect form is replaced by the aorist.
s. 361. In the present English there is no undoubted perfect or reduplicate form. The form moved corresponds in meaning not with [Greek: tetupha] and momordi, but with [Greek: etupsa] and vixi. Its sense is that of [Greek: etupsa], and not that of [Greek: tetupha]. The notion given by [Greek: tetupha] we express by the circumlocution I have beaten. We have no such form as bebeat or memove. In the Moeso-Gothic, however, there was a true reduplicate form; in other words, a perfect tense as well as an aorist. It {305} is by the possession of this form that the verbs of the first six conjugations are characterized.
1st. Faltha, I fold . F['a]ifalth, I have folded, or I folded. Halda, I feed . H['a]ihald, I have fed, or I fed. Haha, I hang . H['a]ihah, I have hanged, or I hanged. 2nd. H['a]ita, I call . H['a]ih['a]it, I have called, or I called. L['a]ika, I play . L['a]il['a]ik, I have played, or I played. 3d. Hl['a]upa,I run . Hl['a]il['a]up,I have run, or I ran. 4th. Sl[^e]pa, I sleep . S['a]izl[^e]p, I have slept, or I slept. 5th. L['a]ia, I laugh . L['a]il[^o], I have laughed, or I laught. S['a]ija, I sow . S['a]is[^o], I have sown, or I sowed. 6th Gr[^e]ta, I weep . G['a]igr[^o]t, I have wept, or I wept. T[^e]ka, I touch . T['a]it[^o]k, I have touched, or I touched.
In Moeso-Gothic, as in Latin, the perfect forms have, besides their own, an aorist sense, and vice vers[^a].
In Moeso-Gothic, as in Latin, few (if any) words are found in both forms.
In Moeso-Gothic, as in Latin, the two forms are dealt with as a single tense; l['a]il[^o] being called the praeterite of l['a]ia, and sv[^o]r the praeterite of svara. The true view, however, is that in Moeso-Gothic, as in Latin, there are two past tenses, each having a certain latitude of meaning, and each, in certain words, replacing the other.
The reduplicate form, in other words, the perfect tense, is current in none of the Gothic languages except the Moeso-Gothic. A trace of it is found in the Anglo-Saxon of the seventh century in the word heht, which is considered to be h[^e]-ht, the Moeso-Gothic h['a]ih['a]it, vocavi. This statement is taken from the Cambridge Philological Museum, ii. 378. Did from do is also considered to be a reduplicate form.
s. 362. In the English language the tense corresponding with the Greek aorist and the Latin forms like vixi, is formed after two modes; 1, as in fell, sang, and took, from fall, sing, and take, by changing the vowel of the present: 2, as in moved and wept, from move and weep, by the addition of d or t; the d or t not being found in the original word, but being a fresh element added to it. In forms, on the contrary, like sang and fell, no addition being made, no new element appears. The {306} vowel, indeed, is changed, but nothing is added. Verbs, then, of the first sort, may be said to form their praeterites out of themselves; whilst verbs of the second sort require something from without. To speak in a metaphor, words like sang and fell are comparatively independent. Be this as it may, the German grammarians call the tenses formed by a change of vowel the strong tenses, the strong verbs, the strong conjugation, or the strong order; and those formed by the addition of d or t, the weak tenses, the weak verbs, the weak conjugation, or the weak order. Bound, spoke, gave, lay, &c., are strong; moved, favoured, instructed, &c., are weak. For the proof that the division of verbs into weak and strong is a natural division, see the Chapter on Conjugation.
* * * * *
{307}
XXIII. THE STRONG TENSES
s. 363. The strong praeterites are formed from the present by changing the vowel, as sing, sang, speak, spoke.
The first point in the history of these tenses that the reader is required to be aware of, is stated in the Chapter upon the Numbers, viz., that, in Anglo-Saxon, several praeterites change, in their plural, the vowel of their singular; as
Ic sang, I sang. We sungon, we sung. Thu sunge, thou sungest. Ge sungon, ye sung. He sang, he sang. Hi sungon, they sung.
As a general rule, the second singular has the same vowel with the plural persons, as burne, thou burntest, plural burnon, we burnt.
The bearing of this fact upon the praeterites has been indicated in p. 300. In a great number of words we have a double form, as ran and run, sang and sung, drank and drunk, &c. One of these forms is derived from the singular, and the other from the plural. I cannot say at what period the difference of form ceased to denote a difference of sense.
In cases where but one form is preserved, that form is not necessarily the singular one. For instance, Ic f_a_nd, I found, we f_u_ndon, we found, are the Anglo-Saxon forms. Now the present word found comes, not from the singular fand, but from the plural fund; although in the Lowland Scotch dialect and in the old writers, the singular form occurs.
Donald Caird finds orra things, Where Allan Gregor fand the tings.--Scott.
Even in the present English it will be found convenient to {308} call the forms like sang and drank the singular, and those like sung and bound the plural forms.
Be it observed, that, though this fact accounts for most of our double forms, it will not account for all. In the Anglo-Saxon, Ic spr['ae]c, I spake, we spr['ae]con, we spake. There is no change of number to account for the two forms spake and spoke.
First Class.
s. 364. Contains the two words fall and fell, hold and held, where the sound of o is changed into that of [)e]. Here must be noticed the natural tendency of a to become o; since the forms in Anglo-Saxon are, Ic fealle, I fall; Ic feoll, I fell; Ic healde, I hold; Ic heold, I held.
Second Class.
s. 365. Here the praeterite ends in -ew. Words of this class are distinguished from those of the third Class by the different form of the present tense.
Present. Praeterite. Draw Drew. Slay Slew. Fly Flew.
In these words the w has grown out of a g, as may be seen from the Anglo-Saxon forms. The word see (saw) belongs to this class: since, in Anglo-Saxon, we find the forms gese['a]h and gesegen, and in the Swedish the praeterite form is saag.
Third Class.
s. 366. Here an o before w, in the present, becomes e before w in the praeterite; as
Present. Praeterite. Blow. Blew. Crow. Crew. Throw. Threw. Know. Knew. Grow. Grew.
Fourth Class.
s. 367. Contains the single word let, where a short e in the {309} present remains unchanged in the praeterite. In the Anglo-Saxon the present form was Ic laete, the praeterite Ic l['e]t.
Fifth Class.
s. 368. Contains the single word beat, where a long e remains unchanged. In Anglo-Saxon the forms were Ic beate, Ic beot.
Sixth Class.
s. 369. Present come, praeterite came, participle come. In Anglo-Saxon, cume, com, cumen.
Seventh Class.
s. 370. In this class we have the sounds of the ee, in feet, and of the a in fate (spelt ea or a), changed into o or oo. As several words in this class have a second form in a, the praeterite in o or oo will be called the primary, the praeterite in a the secondary form.
Present. Primary Praeterite. Secondary Praeterite.
Heave [48]Hove -- Cleave Clove [48]Clave. Weave Wove -- Freeze Froze -- Steal Stole [48]Stale. Speak Spoke Spake. Swear Swore Sware. Bear Bore Bare. Tear Tore [48]Tare. Shear [48]Shore -- Wear Wore [48]Ware. Break Broke Brake. Shake Shook -- Take Took -- Forsake Forsook -- Stand Stood -- -- Quoth -- Get Got [48]Gat.
The praeterite of stand was originally long. This we collect {310} from the spelling, and from the Anglo-Saxon form st['o]d. The process that ejects the nd is the same process that, in Greek, converts [Greek: odont-os] into [Greek: odous].
All the words with secondary forms will appear again in the eighth class.
Eighth Class.
s. 371. In this class the sound of the ee in feet, and the a in fate (spelt ea), is changed into a. Several words of this class have secondary forms. Further details may be seen in the remarks that come after the following list of verbs.
Present. Primary Praeterite. Secondary Praeterite.
Speak Spake Spoke. Break Brake Broke. Cleave [49]Clave Clove. Steal [49]Stale Stole. Eat Ate -- Seethe -- [49]Sod. Tread [49]Trad Trod. Bear Bare Bore. Tear Tare Tore. Swear Sware Swore. Wear [49]Ware Wore. Bid Bade Bid. Sit Sate -- Give Gave -- Lie Lay -- Get [49]Gat Got.
Here observe,--1. That in speak, cleave, steal, the ea has the same power with the ee in freeze and seethe; so that it may be dealt with as the long (or independent) sound of the i in bid, sit, give.
2. That the same view may be taken of the ea in break, although the word by some persons is pronounced brake. Gabrika, gabrak, Moeso-Gothic; briku, brak, Old Saxon; brece, brac, Anglo-Saxon. Also of bear, tear, swear, wear. In the provincial dialects these words are even now pronounced beer, teer, sweer. The forms in the allied languages are, in {311} respect to these last-mentioned words, less confirmatory; Moeso-Gothic, svara, b['a]ira; Old High German, sverju, piru.
3. That the ea in tread was originally long; Anglo-Saxon, tredan, trede, tr['ae]d, treden.
4. Lie.--Here the sound is diphthongal, having grown out of the Anglo-Saxon forms licgan, l['ae]g, legen.
5. Sat.--The original praeterite was long. This we collect from the spelling sate, and from the Anglo-Saxon s['ae]t.
Ninth Class.
s. 372. A, as in fate, is changed either into the o in note, or the oo in book. Here it should be noticed that, unlike break and swear, &c., there is no tendency to sound the a of the present as ee, neither is there, as was the case with clove and spoke, any tendency to secondary forms in a. A partial reason for this lies in the original nature of the vowel. The original vowel in speak was e. If this was the ['e] ferm['e] of the French, it was a sound from which the a in fate and the ee in feet might equally have been evolved. The vowel sound of the verbs of the present class was that of a for the present and that of ['o] for the praeterite forms; as wace, w['o]c, grafe, gr['o]f. Now of these two sounds it may be said that the a has no tendency to become the ee in feet, and that the ['o] has no tendency to become the a in fate.
The sounds that are evolved from the accentuated ['o], are the o in note and the oo in book.
Present. Praeterite.
Awake Awoke. Wake Woke. Lade [50]Lode. Grave [50]Grove. Take Took. Shake Shook. Forsake Forsook. Shape [50]Shope.
Tenth Class.
s. 373. Containing the single word strike, struck, stricken. It is only in the Middle High German, the Middle Dutch, the New High German, the Modern Dutch, and the English, that {312} this word is found in its praeterite forms. These are, in Middle High German, streich; New High German, strich; Middle Dutch, str[^e]c; Modern Dutch, str[^i]k. Originally it must have been referable to the ninth class.
Eleventh Class.
s. 374. In this class we first find the secondary forms accounted for by the difference of form between the singular and plural numbers. The change is from the i in bite to the o in note, and the i in pit. Sometimes it is from the i in bit to the a in bat. The Anglo-Saxon conjugation (A) may be compared with the present English (B).
A.
Present. Praeterite sing. Praeterite plur.
Scine (shine) Sce['a]n (I shone) Scinon (we shone). Arise (arise) Ar['a]s (I arose) Arison (we arose). Smite (smite) Sm['a]t (I smote) Smiton (we smite).
B.
Present. Praet.--Sing. form. Praet.--Pl. form.
Rise Rose [51]Ris. Abide Abode -- Shine Shone -- Smite Smote Smit. Ride Rode [51]Rid. Stride Strode Strid. Slide [51]Slode Slid. Glide [51]Glode -- Chide [51]Chode -- Drive Drove [51]Driv. Thrive Throve [51]Thriv. Strive Strove -- Write Wrote Writ. Climb Clomb -- Slit [51]Slat Slit. Bite [51]Bat Bit.
On this list we may make the following observations and statements.
{313}
1. That, with the exception of the word slit, the i is sounded as a diphthong.
2. That, with the exception of bat and slat, it is changed into o in the singular and into [)i] in the plural forms.
3. That, with the exception of shone, the o is always long (or independent).
4. That, even with the word shone, the o was originally long. This is known from the final -e mute, and from the Anglo-Saxon form sc['e]an; Moeso-Gothic, sk['a]in; Old Norse, skein.
5. That the o, in English, represents an ['a] in Anglo-Saxon.
6. That the statement last made shows that even bat and slat were once in the same condition with arose and smote, the Anglo-Saxon forms being ar['a]s, sm['a]t, b['a]t, sl['a]t.
Twelfth Class.
s. 375. In this class i is generally short; originally it was always so. In the singular form it becomes [)a], in the plural, [)u].
Present. Praet.--Sing. form. Praet.--Pl. form. Swim Swam Swum. Begin Began Begun. Spin [52]Span Spun. Win [52]Wan [53]Won. Sing Sang Sung. Swing [52]Swang Swung. Spring Sprang Sprung. Sting [52]Stang Stung. Ring Rang Rung. Wring [52]Wrang Wrung. Fling Flang Flung. Cling -- Clung. [52]Hing Hang Hung. String [52]Strang Strung. Sling -- Slung. Sink Sank Sunk. Drink Drank Drunk. Shrink Shrank Shrunk. Stink [52]Stank Stunk. Swink -- -- Slink -- Slunk. Swell Swoll -- {314} Melt [54]Molt -- Help [54]Holp -- Delve [54]Dolv -- Dig -- Dug. Stick [54]Stack Stuck. Run Ran Run. Burst -- Burst. Bind Band Bound. Find [54]Fand Found. Grind -- Ground. Wind -- Wound.
Upon this list we make the following observations and statements:--
1. That, with the exceptions of bind, find, grind, and wind, the vowels are short (or dependent) throughout.
2. That, with the exception of run and burst, the vowel of the present tense is either the i or e.
3. That i short changes into a for the singular, and into u for the plural forms.
4. That e changes into o in the singular forms; these being the only ones preserved.
5. That the i in bind, &c., changes into ou in the plural forms; the only ones current.
6. That the vowel before m or n is, with the single exception of run, always i.
7. That the vowel before l and r is, with the single exception of burst, always e.
8. That, where the i is sounded as in bind, the combination following is -nd.
9. That ng being considered as a modification of k (the Norse and Moeso-Gothic forms being drecka and drikjan), it may be stated that i short, in the twelfth class, precedes either a liquid or a mute of series k.
From these observations, even on the English forms only, we find thus much regularity; and from these observations, even on the English forms only, we may lay down a rule like the following: viz. that i or u, short, before the consonants m, n, {315} or ck, is changed into a for the singular, and into u for the plural forms; that i long, or diphthongal, becomes ou; that e before l becomes o; and that u before r remains unchanged.
This statement, however, is nothing like so general as the one that, after a comparison of the older forms and the allied languages, we are enabled to make. Here we are taught,
1. That, in the words bind, &c., the i was once pronounced as in till, fill; in other words, that it was the simple short vowel, and not the diphthong ey; or at least that it was treated as such.
Moeso-Gothic. Binda Band Bundum Bundans. Bivinda Bivand Bivundum Bivundums. Fintha Fanth Funthum Funthans.
Anglo-Saxon. Bind Band Bundon Bunden. Finde Fand Fundon Funden. Grinde Grand Grundon Grunden. Winde Wand Wundon Wunden.
Old Norse. Finn Fann Fundhum Funninn. Bind Batt Bundum Bundinn. Vind Vatt Undum Undinn.
When the vowel [)i] of the present took the sound of the i in bite, the [)u] in the praeterite became the ou in mouse. From this we see that the words bind, &c., are naturally subject to the same changes with spin, &c., and that, mutatis mutandis, they are so still.
2. That the e in swell, &c., was once [)i]. This we collect from the following forms:--hilpa, Moeso-Gothic; hilfu, Old High German; hilpu, Old Saxon; hilpe, Middle High German; hilpe, Old Frisian. Suillu=swell, Old High German. Tilfu=delve, Old High German; dilbu, Old Saxon. Smilzu, Old High German=smelt or melt. This shows that originally the vowel i ran throughout, but that before l and r it was changed into e. This change took place at different periods in different dialects. The Old Saxon preserved the {316} i longer than the Anglo-Saxon. It is found even in the middle High German; in the new it has become e; as schwelle, schmelze. In one word milk, the original i is still preserved; although in Anglo-Saxon it was e; as melce, mealc=milked, mulcon. In the Norse the change from i to e took place full soon, as svell=swells. The Norse language is in this respect important.
3. That the o in swoll, holp, was originally a; as
Hilpa Halp Hulpum Moeso-Gothic. Suillu Sual Suullum[^e]s Old High German. Hilfu Half Hulfum[^e]s Ditto. Tilfu Talf Tulfum[^e]s Ditto. Hilpe Halp Hulpun Middle High German. Dilbe Dalp Dulbun Ditto. Hilpe Halp Hulpon Ditto. Svell Svall Sullum Old Norse. Melte Mealt Multon Anglo-Saxon. Helpe Haelp Hulpon Ditto. Delfe Dealf Dulfon Ditto.
4. That a change between a and o took place by times. The Anglo-Saxon praeterite of swelle is sweoll; whilst ongon, bond, song, gelomp, are found in the same language for ongan, band, sang, gelamp.--Rask's Anglo-Saxon Grammar, p. 90.
5. That run is only an apparent exception, the older form being rinn.
The rain rinns down through Merriland town; So doth it down the Pa.--Old Ballad.
The Anglo-Saxon form is yrnan; in the praeterite arn, urnon. A transposition has since taken place. The word run seems to have been originally no present, but a praeterite form.
6. That burst is only an apparent exception. Before r, [)e], [)i], [)u], are pronounced alike. We draw no distinction between the vowels in pert, flirt, hurt. The Anglo-Saxon forms are, berste, byrst, baerse, burston, borsten.
Thirteenth Class.
s. 376. Contains the single word choose, in the praeterite chose; in Anglo-Saxon, ce['o]se, ce['a]s.
* * * * *
{317}
XXIV. THE WEAK TENSES
s. 377. The praeterite tense of the weak verbs is formed by the addition of -d or -t. If necessary, the syllable -ed is substituted for -d.
The current statement that the syllable -ed, rather than the letter -d, is the sign of the praeterite tense, is true only in regard to the written language. In stabbed, moved, bragged, whizzed, judged, filled, slurred, slammed, shunned, barred, strewed, the e is a point of spelling only. In language, except in declamation, there is no second vowel sound. The -d comes in immediate contact with the final letter of the original word, and the number of syllables remains the same as it was before.
When, however, the original word ends in -d or -t, as slight or brand, then, and then only (and that not always), is there the addition of the syllable -ed; as in slighted, branded. This is necessary, since the combinations slightt and brandd are unpronounceable.
Whether the addition be -d or -t depends upon the flatness or sharpness of the preceding letter.
After b, v, th (as in clothe), g, or z, the addition is -d. This is a matter of necessity. We say stabd, m[^o]vd, cl[^o]thd, braggd, whizzd, because stabt, m[^o]vt, clotht, braggt, whizzt, are unpronounceable.
After l, m, n, r, w, y, or a vowel, the addition is also -d. This is the habit of the English language. Filt, slurt, strayt, &c., are as pronounceable as filld, slurrd, strayd, &c. It is the habit, however, of the English language to prefer the latter forms. All this, as the reader has probably observed, is merely the reasoning concerning the s, in words like {318} father's, &c., applied to another letter and to another part of speech.
For some historical notices respecting the use of -d, -t, and -ed, in the spelling of the English praeterites and participles, the reader is referred to the Cambridge Philological Museum, vol. i. p. 655.
s. 378. The verbs of the weak conjugation fall into three classes. In the first there is the simple addition of -d, -t, or -ed.
Serve, served. Cry, cried. Betray, betrayed. Expel, expelled. Accuse, accused. Instruct, instructed. Invite, invited. Waste, wasted.
Dip, dipped (dipt). Slip, slipped (slipt). Step, stepped (stept). Look, looked (lookt). Pluck, plucked (pluckt). Toss, tossed (tost). Push, pushed (pusht). Confess, confessed (confest)
To this class belong the greater part of the weak verbs and all verbs of foreign origin.
s. 379. In the second class, besides the addition of -t or -d, the vowel is shortened. It also contains those words which end in -d or -t, and at the same time have a short vowel in the praeterite. Such, amongst others, are cut, cost, &c., where the two tenses are alike, and bend, rend, &c., where the praeterite is formed from the present by changing -d into -t, as bent, rent, &c.
In the following list, the words ending in -p are remarkable; since, in Anglo-Saxon, each of them had, instead of a weak, a strong praeterite.
Leave, left. Cleave, cleft. Bereave, bereft. Deal, de[)a]l_t_. Feel, fel_t_. Dream, dre[)a]m_t_. Lean, le[)a]n_t_. Learn, learn_t_. Creep, crept. Sleep, slept. Leap, lept. Keep, kept. Weep, wept. Sweep, swept. Lose, lost. Flee, fled.
In this class we sometimes find -t where the -d is expected; the forms being left and dealt, instead of leaved and dealed. {319}
s. 380. Third class.--In the second class the vowel of the present tense was shortened in the praeterite. In the third class it is changed.
Tell, told. Will, would. Sell, sold. Shall, should.
To this class belong the remarkable praeterites of the verbs seek, beseech, catch, teach, bring, think, and buy, viz., sought, besought, caught, taught, brought, thought, and bought. In all these, the final consonant is either g or k, or else a sound allied to those mutes. When the tendency of these sounds to become h and y, as well as to undergo farther changes, is remembered, the forms in point cease to seem anomalous. In wrought, from work, there is a transposition. In laid and said the present forms make a show of regularity which they have not. The true original forms should be legde and saegde, the infinitives being lecgan, secgan. In these words the i represents the semivowel y, into which the original g was changed. The Anglo-Saxon forms of the other words are as follows:--
Byegan, b['o]hte. S[`e]can, s['o]hte. Wyrcan, w['o]rhte. Bringan, br['o]hte. Thencan, th['o]hte.
s. 381. Out of the three classes into which the weak verbs in Anglo-Saxon are divided, only one takes a vowel before the d or t. The other two add the syllables -te, or -de, to the last letter of the original word. The vowel that, in one out of the three Anglo-Saxon classes, precedes d is o. Thus we have lufian, lufode; clypian, clypode. In the other two classes the forms are respectively baernan, baernde; and tellan, tealde, no vowel being found. The participle, however, as stated above, ended, not in -de or -te, but in -d or -t; and in two out of the three classes it was preceded by a vowel, gelufod, baerned, geteald. Now in those conjugations where no vowel preceded the d of the praeterite, and where the original word ended in -d or -t, a difficulty, which has already been indicated, arose. To add the sign of the praeterite to a word like eard-ian (to dwell) was an easy matter, inasmuch as {320} _eard__ian_ was a word belonging to the first class, and in the first class the praeterite was formed in -ode. Here the vowel o kept the two d's from coming in contact. With words, however, like m['e]tan and sendan, this was not the case. Here no vowel intervened; so that the natural praeterite forms were met-te, send-de, combinations wherein one of the letters ran every chance of being dropped in the pronunciation. Hence, with the exception of the verbs in the first class, words ending in -d or -t in the root admitted no additional d or t in the praeterite. This difficulty, existing in the present English as it existed in the Anglo-Saxon, modifies the praeterites of most words ending in -t or -d.
In several words there is the actual addition of the syllable -ed; in other words d is separated from the last letter of the original word by the addition of a vowel; as ended, instructed, &c. Of this e two views may be taken.
1. It may be derived from the original o in -ode, the termination of the first class in Anglo-Saxon. This is the opinion which we form when the word in question is known to have belonged to the Anglo-Saxon language, and, in it, to the first class. Ended, planted, warded, hated, heeded, are (amongst others) words of this sort; their Anglo-Saxon forms being endode, plantode, weardode, hatode, and eahtode, from endian, plantian, weardian, hatian, and eahtian.
2. The form may be looked upon, not as that of the praeterite, but as that of the participle in a transferred sense. This is the view when we have two forms, one with the vowel, and the other without it, as bended and bent, wended and went, plighted and plight.
A. In several words the final -d is changed into -t, as bend, bent; rend, rent; send, sent; gild, gilt; build, built; spend, spent, &c.
B. In several words the vowel of the root is changed; as feed, fed; bleed, bled; breed, bred; meet, met; speed, sped; r[=e]ad, r[)e]ad, &c. Words of this last-named class cause occasional difficulty to the grammarian. No addition is made to the root, and, in this circumstance, they agree with the strong verbs. Moreover, there is a change of the vowel. {321} In this circumstance also they agree with the strong verbs. Hence with forms like fed and led we are in doubt as to the conjugation. This doubt we have three means of settling, as may be shown by the word beat.
a. By the form of the participle.--The -en in beaten shows that the word beat is strong.
b. By the nature of the vowel.--The weak form of to beat would be bet, or be[)a]t, after the analogy of feed and r[=e]ad. By some persons the word is pronounced bet, and with those who do so the word is weak.
c. By a knowledge of the older forms.--The Anglo-Saxon form is be['a]te, beot. There is no such a weak form as be['a]te, baette. The praeterite of sendan is sende, weak. There is in Anglo-Saxon no such form as sand, strong.
In all this we see a series of expedients for separating the praeterite form from the present, when the root ends with the same sound with which the affix begins.
The addition of the vowel takes place only in verbs of the first class.
The change from a long vowel to a short one, as in feed, fed, &c., can only take place where there is a long vowel to be changed.
Where the vowels are short, and, at the same time, the word ends in -d, the -d of the present may become -t in the praeterite. Such is the case with bend, bent.
When there is no long vowel to shorten, and no -d to change into -t, the two tenses, of necessity, remain alike; such is the case with cut, cost, &c.
Words like planted, heeded, &c., belong to the first class. Words like feed, lead, to the second class. Bend and cut belong also to the second class; they belong to it, however, by what may be termed an etymological fiction. The vowel would be changed if it could.
s. 382. Made, had.--In these words there is nothing remarkable but the ejection of a consonant. The Anglo-Saxon forms are macode and haefde, respectively. The words, however, in regard to the amount of change, are not upon a par. The f in haefde was probably sounded as v. Now v {322} is a letter excessively liable to be ejected, which k is not. K, before it is ejected, is generally changed into either g or y.
Would, should, could.--It must not be imagined that could is in the same predicament with these words. In will and shall the -l is part of the original word. This is not the case with can. For the form could, see the Chapter upon Irregularity.
Aught.--In Anglo-Saxon ['a]hte, the praeterite of the present form ['a]h, plural ['a]gan.--As late as the time of Elizabeth we find owe used for own. The present form own seems to have arisen from the plural ['a]gen. Aught is the praeterite of the Anglo-Saxon ['a]h; owed of the English owe=debeo; owned of the English own=possideo. The word own, in the expression to own to a thing, has a totally different origin. It comes from the Anglo-Saxon an (plural, unnon)=I give, or grant=concedo.
Durst.--The verb dare is both transitive and intransitive. We can say either I dare do such a thing, or I dare (challenge) such a man to do it. This, in the present tense, is unequivocally correct. In the past the double power of the word dare is ambiguous; still it is, to my mind at least, allowable. We can certainly say I dared him to accept my challenge; and we can, perhaps, say I dared venture on the expedition. In this last sentence, however, durst is the preferable expression.
Now, although dare is both transitive and intransitive, durst is only intransitive. It never agrees with the Latin word provoco; only with the Latin word audeo. Moreover, the word durst has both a present and a past sense. The difficulty which it presents consists in the presence of the -st, letters characteristic of the second person singular, but here found in all the persons alike; as I durst, they durst, &c.
The Moeso-Gothic forms are dar, dart? dar, da['u]rum, da['u]ruth, da['u]run, for the persons of the present tense; and da['u]rsta, da['u]rst[^e]s, da['u]rsta, &c., for those of the praeterite. The same is the case throughout the Germanic languages. No -s, however, appears in the Scandinavian; the praeterites being thordhi and toerde, Icelandic and Danish. The Anglo-Saxon is dear=I dare, dearst=thou darest, durron=we, {323} ye, or they dare; subjunctive, durre, dorste, dorston. Old Saxon, present, dar; praeterite dursta. The Moeso-Gothic tense, da['u]rsta, instead of da['u]rda, shows the antiquity of this form in -s.
The readiest mode of accounting for the form in question is to suppose that the second singular has been extended over all the other persons. This view, however, is traversed by the absence of the -s in the Moeso-Gothic present. The form there (real or presumed) is not darst, but dart. Of this latter form, however, it must be remarked that its existence is hypothetical.
In Matthew xxvi. 67, of the Moeso-Gothic Gospel of Ulphilas, is found the form ka['u]past[^e]dun, instead of ka['u]patid['e]dun, the praeterite plural of ka['u]patjan=to beat. Here there is a similar insertion of the -s.--Deutsche Grammatik, i. 848, 852, 853.
The -s in durst has still to be satisfactorily accounted for.
Must.--A form common to all persons, numbers, and tenses. That neither the -s nor the -t are part of the original root, is indicated by the Scandinavian form maae (Danish), pronounced moh; praeterite maatte.
The readiest mode of accounting for the -s in must, is to presume that it belongs to the second singular, extended to the other persons, mo-est=must. Irrespective, however, of other objections, this view is traversed by the forms m[^o]tan, Moeso-Gothic (an infinitive), and m['o]t, Moeso-Gothic, Old Saxon, and Anglo-Saxon (a first person present). These neutralise the evidence given by the Danish form maae, and indicate that the -t is truly a part of the original root.
Now, the -t being considered as part of the root, the -s cannot be derived from the second singular; inasmuch as it precedes, instead of following the -t.
At one time, for want of a better theory, I conceived, that in the word in point (and also in durst and a few others), we had traces of the Scandinavian passive. This notion I have, for evident reasons, abandoned.
In p. 298 it was stated that the Moeso-Gothic termination of the second singular of the strong praeterites was -t. It is {324} here mentioned that must is a praeterite form. Now the final letter of the root mot, and the sign of the second singular of the strong praeterite, are the same, -t. Now, as -t cannot be immediately added to t, the natural form of the second singular m['o]t-t is impracticable. Hence, before the -t of the second person, the -t of the root is changed, so that, instead of m['a]im['a]it-t, bigat-t, f['a]ifalth-t, l['a]ilot-t, &c., we have m['a]im['a]is-t, bigas-t, f['a]ifals-t, l['a]ilos-t, &c., Moeso-Gothic.--See Deutsche Grammatik, 844.
The euphonic reason for the -s, in must, is sufficient to show that it is in a different predicament from durst.
The provincial form mun, there or thereabouts equivalent in meaning to must, has no etymological connexion with this last named word. It is a distinct word, in Scandinavian monne.
Wist.--In its present form a regular praeterite from wiss=know. The difficulties of this word arise from the parallel forms wit (as in to wit), and wot=knew. The following are the forms of this peculiar word:--
In Moeso-Gothic, 1 sing. pres. ind. v['a]it; 2. do., v['a]ist; 1. pl. vitum; praeterite 1. s. vissa; 2 viss[^e]ss; 1. pl. viss[^e]dum. From the form v['a]ist we see that the second singular is formed after the manner of must; that is, v['a]ist stands instead of v['a]it-t. From the form viss[^e]dum we see that the praeterite is not strong, but weak; therefore that vissa is euphonic for vista.
In Anglo-Saxon.--W[^a]t, w[^a]st, witon, wiste and wisse, wiston.--Here the double forms, wiste and wisse, verify the statement concerning the Moeso-Gothic vissa.
In Icelandic.--Veit, veizt, vitum, vissi. Danish ved, vide, vidste. Observe the form vidste; since, in it, the -d of the root (in spelling, at least), is preserved. The -t of the Anglo-Saxon wiste is the -t, not of the root, but of the inflection.
In respect to the four forms in question, viz., wit, wot, wiss, wist; the first seems to be the root; the second a strong praeterite regularly formed, but used (like [Greek: oida] in Greek) with a present sense; the third a weak praeterite, of which the -t has been ejected by a euphonic process, used also with a {325} present sense; the fourth is a second singular from wiss after the manner of wert from were, a second singular from wit after the manner of must, a secondary praeterite from wiss, or finally, the form wisse, anterior to the operation of the euphonic process that ejected the -t.
Do.--In the phrase this will do=this will answer the purpose, the word do is wholly different from the word do, meaning to act. In the first case it is equivalent to the Latin valere; in the second to the Latin facere. Of the first the Anglo-Saxon inflection is de['a]h, dugon, dohte, dohtest, &c. Of the second it is d['o], d['o]dh, dyde, &c. I doubt whether the praeterite did_,_ as equivalent to valebat=was good for, is correct. In the phrase it did for him=it finished him, either meaning may be allowed.
In the present Danish they write duger, but say duer: as duger et noget?=Is it worth anything? pronounced dooer deh note? This accounts for the ejection of the g. The Anglo-Saxon form deah does the same.
In respect to the praeterite of do=facio, difficulties present themselves.
Is the word weak?--This is the view that arises from the form did. The participle done traverses this view.
Is the word strong?--In favour of this notion we have the English participle done, and the praeterite second singular in Old High German t[^a]ti. Against it are the Old Saxon d['e]dos, and the Anglo-Saxon dydest, as second singulars.
Is there a reduplication?--If this were the case, we might assume such a form as d[^o]an, d['a]id[^o], for the Moeso-Gothic. This view, however, is traversed by the substantival forms d[^e]ds, Moeso-Gothic; t[^a]t, Old High German; daed, Anglo-Saxon; which show that the second -d is part of the original word.
The true nature of the form did has yet to be exhibited.--See Deutsche Grammatik, i. 1041.
Mind--mind and do so and so.--In this sentence the word mind is wholly different from the noun mind. The Anglo-Saxon forms are geman, gemanst, gemunon, without the -d; this letter occurring only in the praeterite tense (gemunde, {326} gemundon), of which it is the sign. Mind is, then, a praeterite form with a present sense; whilst minded (as in he minded his business) is an instance of excess of inflection; in other words, it is a praeterite formed from a praeterite.
A praeterite formed upon a praeterite may also be called a secondary praeterite; just as the word theirs, derived from their (a case formed from a case), is called a secondary genitive.
In like manner the present form mind is not a genuine present, but a praeterite with a present sense; its form being taken as the test. Presents of this sort may be called transformed praeterites.
It is very evident that the praeterites most likely to become present are those of the strong class. In the first place, the fact of their being praeterite is less marked. The word tell carries with it fewer marks of its tense than the word moved. In the second place they can more conveniently give rise to secondary praeterites. A weak praeterite already ends in -d or -t. If this be used as a present, a second -d or -t must be appended.
Hence it is that all the transposed praeterites in the Gothic tongues were, before they took the present sense, not weak, but strong. The word in question, mind (from whence minded), is only an apparent exception to this statement.
Now the words shall, can, owe (whence aught), dare, may, man (of the Anglo-Saxon geman, the origin of mind), are, (irrespective of their other peculiarities), for certain etymological reasons, looked upon as praeterite forms with a present sense.
And the words should, could, aught, dared (or durst), must, wist, might, mind, are, for certain etymological reasons, looked upon as secondary praeterites.
This fact alters our view of the form minded. Instead of being a secondary praeterite, it is a tertiary one. Geman (the apparent present) being dealt with as a strong praeterite with a present sense, mind (from the Anglo-Saxon gemunde) is the secondary praeterite, and minded (from the English mind) is a tertiary praeterite. To analyse the word, the {327} praeterite is first formed by the vowel a, then by the addition of -d, and, thirdly, by the termination -ed; man, mind, minded.
The proof of this we collect from the second persons singular, Moeso-Gothic. The second singular praeterite of the strong class is -t; of the weak class, -es; of the present, both weak and strong, -s. Now the second singular of the words in point is skal-t, kan-t, ['a]ih-t, dar-t? mag-t, man-t, respectively.--Deutsche Grammatik, i. 852.
Besides this, in Anglo-Saxon, the plural forms are those of the strong praeterites. See Rask, p. 79.
Yode.--The obsolete praeterite of go, now replaced by went, the praeterite of wend. Regular, except that the initial g has become y.
* * * * *
{328}
XXV. ON CONJUGATION
s. 383. The current statement respecting verbs like sing and fall, &c., is that they are irregular. How far this is the case may be seen from a review of the twelve classes in Moeso-Gothic, where the change of the vowel is subject to fewer irregularities than elsewhere. In the first six conjugations the praeterite is replaced by a perfect tense. Consequently, there is a reduplication. Of these the fifth and sixth superadd to the reduplication a change of the vowel.
Present. Past.[55] Past Participle. Sing. Plural.
1. Salta S['a]isalt S['a]isaltum Saltans Leap. 2. H['a]ita H['a]ih['a]it H['a]ih['a]itum H['a]itans Call. 3. Hl['a]upa Hl['a]il['a]up Hl['a]il['a]upum Hl['a]upans Run. 4. Sl[^e]pa S['a]izl[^e]p S['a]isl[^e]pum Sl[^e]pans Sleep. 5. L['a]ia L['a]il[^o] L['a]il[^o]um L['a]ilans Laugh. 6. Gr[^e]ta G['a]igr[^o]t G['a]igr[^o]tum Gr[^e]tans Weep. 7. Svara Sv[^o]r Sv[^o]rum Svarans Swear. 8. Greipa Gr['a]ip Gripum Gripans Gripe. 9. Biuda B['a]uth Budum Budans Offer. 10. Giba Gab G[^e]bum Gibans Give. 11. Stila Stal St[^e]lum Stulans Stole. 12. Rinna Rann Runnum Runnans Run.
Exhibited in a tabular form, the changes of the vowels in Moeso-Gothic are as follows:--
Prs. Pst. S. Pst. Pl. Part. 1. a a a a 2. ['a]i ['a]i ['a]i ['a]i 3. ['a]u ['a]u ['a]u ['a]u 4. [^e] [^e] [^e] [^e] {329} 5. ['a]i [^o] [^o] a 6. [^e] [^o] [^o] [^e] 7. a [^o] [^o] a 8. ei ['a]i i i 9. iu ['a]u u u 10. i a [^e] i 11. i a [^e] u 12. i a u u
s. 384. Such is the arrangement of the strong verbs in Moeso-Gothic, with which the arrangement of the strong verbs in the other Gothic languages may or may not coincide.
For a full and perfect coincidence three things are necessary:--1. the coincidence of form; 2. the coincidence of distribution; 3. the coincidence of order.
1. Coincidence of form..--Compared with the Moeso-Gothic rinna, rann, runnum, runnans, the Old High German inflection coincides most rigidly; e.g., rinnu, ran, runnum[^e]s, runnan[^e]. The vowel is the same in the two languages, and it is similarly changed in each. It is very evident that this might be otherwise. The Moeso-Gothic i might have become e, or the u might have become o. In this case, the formula for the two languages would not have been the same. Instead of i, a, u, u (see the tabular arrangement), serving for the Old High German as well as the Moeso-Gothic, the formula would have been, for the Moeso-Gothic, i, a, u, u, and for the Old High German e, a, u, u, or i, a, o, o. The forms in this latter case would have been equivalent, but not the same.
2. Coincidence of distribution.--A given number of words in the Moeso-Gothic form their praeterites by changing i into a; in other words, a given number of verbs in Moeso-Gothic are inflected like rinna and rann. The same is the case with the Old High German. Now if these words are the same in the two languages, the Moeso-Gothic and the Old High German (as far as the agreement extends) coincide in the distribution of their verbs; that is, the same words are arranged in the same class, or (changing the phrase) are distributed alike.
3. Coincidence of order.--The conjugation to which the Moeso-Gothic words rinna and rann belong is the twelfth. The same is the case in Old High German. It might, {330} however, have been the case that in Old High German the class corresponding with the twelfth in Moeso-Gothic was the first, second, third, or any other.
Now a coincidence of form, a coincidence of distribution, and a coincidence of order, in all the classes of all the Gothic languages, is more than can be expected. If such were the case, the tenses would be identical throughout.
Coincidence of form is infringed upon by the simple tendency of sounds to change. Hilpa in Moeso-Gothic is helpe in Anglo-Saxon: hulpans in Moeso-Gothic is holfan[^e]r in Old High German, and holpen in Anglo-Saxon. A change, however, of this sort is insufficient to affect the arrangement. Helpan, in Anglo-Saxon, is placed in the same class with spinnan; and all that can be said is, that the Moeso-Gothic i is, in Anglo-Saxon, represented not by i exclusively, but sometimes by i and sometimes by [)e].
Coincidence of distribution is of great etymological importance. A word may in one stage of a language take the form of one conjugation, and in another that of another. The word climban is, in Anglo-Saxon, placed in the same conjugation with drincan, &c. For this there was a reason; viz., the fact of the i being short. For the i being short there was a reason also. The b preceded the vowel a, and consequently was sounded. This was the case whether the word was divided clim-ban or climb-an. An, however, was no part of the original word, but only the sign of the infinitive mood. As such it became ejected. The letter b then came at the end of the word; but as the combination mb, followed by nothing was unstable, b was soon lost in pronunciation. Now b being lost, the vowel which was once short became lengthened, or rather it became the sound of the diphthong ei; so that the word was no longer called cl[)i]mb, but clime. Now the words that follow the analogy of spin, span ,&c. (and consequently constitute the twelfth class), do so, not because the vowel is i, but because it is a short i; and when the i is sounded like a diphthong, the praeterite is formed differently. The Anglo-Saxon praeterite of climban was sounded cl[)o]mm, and rhymed to from; the English praeterite (when strong) of {331} climb is sounded cl[=o]mbe, rhyming to roam. The word climb, which was once classed with spin and sing, is now to be classed with arise and smite; in other words, it is distributed differently.
Coincidence in the order of the classes is violated when a class which was (for instance) the third in one language becomes, in another language the fourth, &c. In Moeso-Gothic the class containing the words smeita, sm['a]it, smitum, smitans, is the eighth. This is a natural place for it. In the class preceding it, the vowel is the same in both numbers. In the classes that follow it, the vowel is changed in the plural. The number of classes that in Moeso-Gothic change the vowel is five; viz., the eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth. Of these the eighth is the first. The classes where the change in question takes place form a natural subdivision, of which the eighth class stands at the head. Now in Anglo-Saxon the vowel is not changed so much as in the Moeso-Gothic. In words like choose, give, and steal, the vowel remains unaltered in the plural. In Moeso-Gothic, however, these words are, respectively, of the ninth, tenth, and eleventh classes. It is not till we get to the eleventh that the Anglo-Saxon plurals take a fresh vowel. As the presence or absence of a change of vowel naturally regulates the order of the classes, the eighth class in Moeso-Gothic becomes the eleventh in Anglo-Saxon. If it were not so, the classes where a change took place in the plural would be separated from each other.
The later the stage of the language, the less complete the coincidence in the classes.
Of the present arrangement, the twelfth class coincides most throughout the Gothic languages.
In the word climb, a reason was given for its having changed from the twelfth class to the eleventh class. This, in the present state of our knowledge, cannot always be done.
These statements are made lest the reader should expect to find between the English and the Anglo-Saxon classification anything more than a partial coincidence. A detailed exhibition of the English conjugations would form a work of {332} itself. Moreover, the present classes of the strong verbs must, to a great degree, be considered as provisional.
Observe, that it is the classes of the strong verbs that are provisional. With the great divisions into weak and strong, the case is far otherwise. The general assertions which will be made in p. 333, respecting the strong conjugation, show most cogently that the division is a natural one.
s. 385. Preliminary, however, to making them, the reader's attention is directed to the following list of verbs. In the present English they all form the praeterite in -d or -t; in Anglo-Saxon, they all form it by a change of the vowel. In other words they are weak verbs that were once strong.
Praeterites.
English. | Anglo-Saxon. | Present. Praeterite. | Present. Praeterite. Wreak Wreaked. | Wrece Wr['ae]c. Fret Fretted. | Frete Fr['ae]t. Mete Meted. | Mete M['ae]t. Shear Sheared. | Scere Scear. Braid Braided. | Brede Br['ae]d. Knead Kneaded. | Cnede Cn['ae]d. Dread Dreaded. | Dr['ae]de Dred. Sleep Slept. | Sl['a]pe Slep. Fold Folded. | Fealde Feold. Wield Wielded. | Wealde Weold. Wax Waxed. | Weaxe Weox. Leap Leapt. | Hle['a]pe Hleop. Sweep Swept. | Sw['a]pe Sweop. Weep Wept. | Wepe Weop. Sow Sowed. | S['a]we Seow. Bake Baked. | Bace B['o]k. Gnaw Gnawed. | Gnage Gn['o]h. Laugh Laughed. | Hlihhe Hl['o]h. Wade Waded. | Wade W['o]d. Lade Laded. | Hlade Hl['o]d. Grave Graved. | Grafe Gr['o]f. Shave Shaved. | Scafe Sc['o]f. Step Stepped. | Steppe St['o]p. Wash Washed. | Wacse W['o]cs. Bellow Bellowed. | Belge Bealh. {333} Swallow Swallowed. | Swelge Swealh. Mourn Mourned. | Murne Mearn. Spurn Spurned. | Spurne Spearn. Carve Carved. | Ceorfe Cearf. Starve Starved. | Steorfe Staerf. Thresh Threshed. | Thersce Thaerse. Hew Hewed. | Heawe Heow. Flow Flowed. | Fl['o]we Fleow. Row Rowed. | R['o]we Reow. Creep Crept. | Cre['o]pe Cre['a]p. Dive Dived. | De['o]fe De['a]f. Shove Shoved. | Sc['e]ofe Sce['a]f. Chew Chewed. | Ce['o]we Ce['a]w. Brew Brewed. | Bre['o]we Bre['a]w. Lock Locked. | L[^u]ce Le['a]c. Suck Sucked. | S[^u]ce Se['a]c. Reek Reeked. | Re['o]ce Re['a]c. Smoke Smoked. | Sme['o]ce Sme['a]c. Bow Bowed. | Be['o]ge Be['a]h. Lie Lied. | Le['o]ge Le['a]h. Gripe Griped. | Gr['i]pe Gr['a]p. Span Spanned. | Spanne Sp['e]n. Eke Eked. | E['a]ce E['o]c. Fare Fared. | Fare F[^o]r.
s. 386. The first of the general statements made concerning strong verbs, with a view of proving that the order is natural, shall be the one arising out of the preceding list of praeterites.
I. Many strong verbs become weak; whilst no weak verb ever becomes strong.
II. All the strong verbs are of Saxon origin. None are classical.
III. The greater number of them are strong throughout the Gothic tongues.
IV. No new word is ever, upon its importation, inflected according to the strong conjugation. It is always weak. As early as A.D. 1085, the French word adouber=to dubb, was introduced into English. Its praeterite was dubbade.[56]
{334}
V. All derived words are inflected weak. The intransitive forms drink and lie, are strong; the transitive forms drench and lay, are weak.
The fourth statement will again be recurred to. The present object is to show that the division into strong and weak is natural.
s. 387. Obsolete forms.--Instead of lept, slept, mowed, snowed, &c., we find, in the provincial dialects and in the older writers, the strong forms lep, step, mew, snew, &c. This is no more than what we expect. Here there are two forms, and each form is of a different conjugation.
s. 388. Double Forms.--In lep and mew we have two forms, of which one only is current. In swoll and swelled, in clomb and climbed, and in hung and hanged, we have two forms, of which both are current. These latter are true double forms. Of double forms there are two kinds.
1. Those like swoll and swelled; where there is the same tense, but a different conjugation.
2. Those like spoke and spake; where the tense is the same and the conjugation the same, but where the form is different.
The bearings of these double forms (which, however, are points of general rather than of English grammar) are as follows. Their number in a given language may be very great, and the grammarian of a given language may call them, not double forms of the same tense, but different tenses. Let the number of words like swoll and swelled be multiplied by 1000. The chances are, that, in the present state of etymology, they would be called first praeterites and second praeterites. The bearing of this remark upon the so-called aorists and futures of the Greek language is evident. I think that a writer in the Cambridge Philological Museum[57] indicates the true nature of those tenses. They are the same tense in a different conjugation, and differ from swoll and swelled only in the frequency of their occurrence.
Difference of form, and difference of conjugation, may each simulate a difference of tense.
* * * * *
{335}
XXVI. DEFECTIVENESS AND IRREGULARITY
s. 389. In s. 361 the distinction between irregularity and defectiveness was slightly foreshadowed. In pp. 243, 267, it was exhibited in its principles. In the present chapter the difference is more urgently insisted on.
The words that have hitherto served as illustrations are the personal pronouns I and me, and the adjectives good, better, and best. See the sections referred to above.
The view of these words was as follows: viz., that none of them were irregular, but that they were all defective. Me wanted the nominative, I the oblique cases. Good was without a comparative, better and best had no positive degree.
Now me and better may be said to make good the defectiveness of I and good; and I and good may be said to replace the forms wanting in me and better. This gives us the principle of compensation. To introduce a new term, I and me, good and better, may be said to be complementary to each other.
What applies to nouns applies to verbs also. Go and went are not irregularities. Go is (at least in the present stage of our language) defective in the past tense. Went (at least in its current sense) is without a present. The two words, however, compensate their mutual deficiencies, and are to each other complementary.
The distinction between defectiveness and irregularity, is the first instrument of criticism for coming to true views concerning the proportion of the regular and irregular verbs.
The second instrument of criticism in determining the irregular verbs, is the meaning that we attach to terms. {336}
It is very evident that it is in the power of the grammarian to raise the number of etymological irregularities to any amount, by narrowing the definition of the word irregular; in other words, by framing an exclusive rule. The current rule of the common grammarians is that the praeterite is formed by the addition of -t, or -d, or -ed. Now this position is sufficiently exclusive; since it proscribes not only the whole class of strong verbs, but also words like bent and sent, where -t exists, but where it does not exist as an addition. The regular forms, it may be said, should be bended and sended.
Exclusive, however, as the rule in question is, it is plain that it might be made more so. The regular forms might, by the fiat of a rule, be restricted to those in -d. In this case words like wept and burnt would be added to the already numerous list of irregulars.
Finally, a further limitation might be made, by laying down as a rule that no word was regular, unless it ended in -ed.
Thus much concerning the modes of making rules exclusive, and, consequently, of raising the amount of irregularities. This is the last art that the philosophic grammarian is ambitious of acquiring. True etymology reduces irregularity by making the rules of grammar, not exclusive, but general. The quantum of irregularity is in the inverse proportion to the generality of our rules. In language itself there is no irregularity. The word itself is only another name for our ignorance of the processes that change words; and, as irregularity is in the direct proportion to the exclusiveness of our rules, the exclusiveness of our rules is in the direct proportion to our ignorance of etymological processes.
The explanation of some fresh terms will lead us towards (but not to) the definition of the word irregular.
I. Vital and obsolete processes.--The word moved is formed from move, by the addition of -d. The addition of -d is the process by which the present form is rendered praeterite. The word fell is formed from fall, by changing a into e. The change of vowel is the process by which the present form is {337} rendered praeterite. Of the two processes the result is the same. In what respect do they differ?
For the sake of illustration, let a new word be introduced into the language. Let a praeterite tense of it be formed. This praeterite would be formed, not by changing the vowel, but by adding -d. No new verb ever takes a strong praeterite. The like takes place with nouns. No new substantive would form its plural, like oxen or geese, by adding -en, or by changing the vowel. It would rather, like fathers and horses, add the lene sibilant.
Now, the processes that change fall, ox, and goose into fell, oxen, and geese, inasmuch as they cease to operate on the language in its present stage, are obsolete processes; whilst those that change move into moved, and horse into horses, operating on the language in its present stage, are vital processes.
A definition of the word irregular might be so framed as to include all words whose forms could not be accounted for by the vital processes. Such a definition would, in the present English, make words like bent, sought, &c. (the euphonic processes being allowed for), regular, and all the strong verbs irregular.
The very fact of so natural a class as that of the strong verbs being reduced to the condition of irregulars, invalidates such a definition as this.
II. Processes of necessity as opposed to processes of habit.--The combinations -pd-, -fd-, -kd-, -sd-, and some others, are unpronounceable. Hence words like step, quaff, back, kiss, &c., take after them the sound of -t: stept, quafft, &c. (the sound being represented), being their praeterites, instead of stepd, quaffd. Here the change from -d (the natural termination) to -t is a matter (or process) of necessity. It is not so with words like weep and wept, &c. Here the change of vowel is not necessary. Weept might have been said if the habit of the language had permitted.
A definition of the word irregular might be so framed as to include all words whose natural form was modified by any euphonic process whatever. In this case stept (modified by a {338} process of necessity), and wept (modified by a process of habit), would be equally irregular.
A less limited definition might account words regular as long as the process by which they are deflected from their natural form was a process of necessity. Those, however, which were modified by a process of habit it would class with the irregulars.
Definitions thus limited arise from ignorance of euphonic processes, or rather from an ignorance of the generality of their operation.
III. Ordinary processes as opposed to extraordinary processes.--The whole scheme of language is analogical. A new word introduced into a language takes the forms of its cases or tenses, &c., from the forms of the cases or tenses, &c., of the old words. The analogy is extended. Now few forms (if any) are so unique as not to have some others corresponding with them; and few processes of change are so unique as not to affect more words than one. The forms wept and slept correspond with each other. They are brought about by the same process; viz. by the shortening of the vowel in weep and sleep. The analogy of weep is extended to sleep, and vice vers[^a]. Changing our expression, a common influence affects both words. The alteration itself is an ultimate fact. The extent of its influence is an instrument of classification. When processes affect a considerable number of words, they may be called ordinary processes; as opposed to extraordinary processes, which affect one or few words.
When a word stands by itself, with no other corresponding to it, we confess our ignorance, and say that it is affected by an extraordinary process, by a process peculiar to itself, or by a process to which we know nothing similar.
A definition of the word irregular might be so framed as to include all words affected by extraordinary processes; the rest being considered regular.
IV. Positive processes as opposed to ambiguous processes.--The words wept and slept are similarly affected. Each is changed from weep and sleep respectively; and we know that {339} the process which affects the one is the process that affects the other also. Here there is a positive process.
Reference is now made to words of a different sort. The nature of the word worse is explained in p. 267, and the reader is referred to the section. There the form is accounted for in two ways, of which only one can be the true one. Of the two processes, each might equally have brought about the present form. Which of the two it was, we are unable to say. Here the process is ambiguous.
A definition of the word irregular might be so framed as to include all words affected by ambiguous processes.
V. Normal processes as opposed to processes of confusion.--Let a certain word come under class A. Let all words under class A be similarly affected. Let a given word come under class A. This word will be affected even as the rest of class A is affected. The process affecting, and the change resulting, will be normal, regular, or analogical.
Let, however, a word, instead of really coming under class A, appear to do so. Let it be dealt with accordingly. The analogy then is a false one. The principle of imitation is a wrong one. The process affecting is a process of confusion.
Examples of this (a few amongst many) are words like songstress, theirs, minded, where the words songstr-, their-, and mind-, are dealt with as roots, which they are not.
Ambiguous processes, extraordinary processes, processes of confusion--each, or all of these are legitimate reasons for calling words irregular. The practice of etymologists will determine what definition is most convenient.
With extraordinary processes we know nothing about the word. With ambiguous processes we are unable to make a choice. With processes of confusion we see the analogy, but, at the same time, see that it is a false one.
s. 390. Could.--With all persons who pronounce the l this word is truly irregular. The Anglo-Saxon form is cudhe. The -l is inserted by a process of confusion.
Can, cunne, canst, cunnon, cunnan, cudhe, cudhon, cudh--such are the remaining forms in Anglo-Saxon. None of them {340} account for the -l. The presence of the -l makes the word could irregular. No reference to the allied languages accounts for it.
Notwithstanding this, the presence of the -l is accounted for. In would and should the -l has a proper place. It is part of the original words, will and shall. A false analogy looked upon could in the same light. Hence a true irregularity; provided that the L be pronounced.
The L, however, is pronounced by few, and that only in pursuance to the spelling. This reduces the word could to an irregularity, not of language, but only of orthography.
That the mere ejection of the -n in can, and that the mere lengthening of the vowel, are not irregularities, we learn from a knowledge of the processes that convert the Greek [Greek: odontos] (odontos) into [Greek: odous] (odows).
s. 391. The verb quoth is truly defective. It is found in only one tense, one number, and one person. It is the third person singular of the praeterite tense. It has the further peculiarity of preceding its pronoun. Instead of saying he quoth, we say quoth he. In Anglo-Saxon, however, it was not defective. It was found in the other tenses, in the other number, and in other moods. Ic cwedhe, thu cwyst, he cwydh. Ic cwaedh, th['u] cwaedhe, he cwaedh, we cwaedon, ge cwaedon, hi cwaedon. Imperative, cwedh. Participle, gecweden. In the Scandinavian it is current in all its forms. There, however, it means, not to speak but to sing. As far as its conjugation goes, it is strong. As far as its class goes, it follows the form of speak, spoke. Like speak, its Anglo-Saxon form is in ae, as cwaedh. Like one of the forms of speak, its English form is in o, as quoth, spoke.
The whole of the present chapter is indicative of the nature of irregularity, and of the elements that should enter into the definition of it, rather than exhaustive of the detail.
The principle that I recognise for myself is to consider no word irregular unless it can be proved so. This view includes the words affected by ambiguous processes, and by processes of confusion, and no others. The words affected by {341} extraordinary processes form a provisional class, which a future increase of our etymological knowledge may show to be regular. Worse and could (its spelling being considered) are the fairest specimens of our irregulars. The class, instead of filling pages, is exceedingly limited.
* * * * *
{342}
XXVII. THE IMPERSONAL VERBS
s. 392. Meseems.--Equivalent to it seems to me; mihi videtur, [Greek: phainetai moi]. The verb seems is intransitive; consequently the pronoun me has the power of a dative case. The pronoun it is not required to accompany the verb.
s. 393. Methinks.--In Anglo-Saxon there are two forms; thencan=to think, and thincan=to seem. It is from the latter form that the verb in methinks comes. Such being the case, it is intransitive, and consequently the pronoun me has the power of a dative case. The pronoun it is not required to accompany the verb.
Of this word we have also the past form methought.
Methought I saw my late espoused wife Brought to me, like Alcestis, from the grave.
MILTON.
s. 394. Me listeth, or me lists.--Equivalent to it pleases me=me juvat. Anglo-Saxon lystan=to wish, to choose, also to please, to delight; Norse, lysta. Unlike the other two, the verb is transitive, so that the pronoun me has the power of an accusative case. The pronoun it is not required to accompany the verb.
These three are the only true impersonal verbs in the English language. They form a class by themselves, because no pronoun accompanies them, as is the case with the equivalent expressions it appears, it pleases, and with all the other verbs in the language.
In the old language impersonal verbs, or rather the impersonal use of verbs, was commoner than at present.
Him oughten now to have the lese pain.
Legend of Good Women, 429.
{343}
Him ought not to be a tyrant.
Legend of Good Women, 377.
Me mete.--CHAUCER.
Well me quemeth.--Conf. Amantis.
In the following lines the construction is, it shall please your Majesty.
I'll muster up my friends to meet your Grace, Where and what time your Majesty shall please.
Richard III., iv. 4.
See a paper of Mr. Guest's, Phil. Trans., vol. ii. 241.
Strictly speaking, the impersonal verbs are a part of syntax rather than of etymology.
* * * * *
{344}
XXVIII. THE VERB SUBSTANTIVE
s. 395. The verb substantive is generally dealt with as an irregular verb. This is inaccurate. The true notion is that the idea of being or existing is expressed by four different verbs, each of which is defective in some of its parts. The parts, however, that are wanting in one verb, are made up by the inflections of one of the others. There is, for example, no praeterite of the verb am, and no present of the verb was. The absence, however, of the present form of was is made up by the word am, and the absence of the praeterite form of am is made up by the word was.
s. 396. Was.--Defective, except in the praeterite tense, where it is found both in the indicative and conjunctive.
Indicative. | Conjunctive. | Sing. Plur. | Sing. Plur. | 1. Was. Were. | 1. Were. Were. 2. Wast. Were. | 2. Wert. Were. 3. Was. Were. | 3. Were. Were.
In the older stages of the Gothic languages the word has both a full conjugation and a regular one. In Anglo-Saxon it has an infinitive, a participle present, and a participle past. In Moeso-Gothic it is inflected throughout with -s; as visa, vas, v[^e]sum, visans. In that language it has the power of the Latin maneo = to remain. The -r first appears in the Old High German; wisu, was, w[^a]rum[^e]s, wesaner. In Norse the s entirely disappears, and the word is inflected with r throughout; vera, var, vorum, &c.
s. 397. Be.--Inflected in Anglo-Saxon throughout the present tense, both indicative and subjunctive; found also as an {345} infinitive be['o]n, as a gerund to beonne, and as a participle beonde. In the present English its inflection is as follows:--
Present.
Indicative. | Conjunctive. | Imperative. Sing. Plur. | Sing. Plur. | Sing. Plur. | | 1. -- -- | Be. Be. | -- -- 2. Beest. -- | Beest? Be. | Be. Be. 3. -- -- | Be. Be, Bin. | -- -- | | Infin. To be. Pres. P. Being. Past Part. Been.
The line in Milton beginning If thou beest he--(P. L. b. ii.), leads to the notion that the antiquated form beest is not indicative, but conjunctive. Such, however, is not the case: b['y]st in Anglo-Saxon is indicative, the conjunctive form being be['o].--And every thing that pretty bin (Cymbeline).--Here the word bin is the conjunctive plural, in Anglo-Saxon b['e]on; so that the words every thing are to be considered equivalent to the plural form all things. The phrase in Latin would stand thus, quotquot pulcra sint; in Greek thus, [Greek: ha an kala ei]. The indicative plural is, in Anglo-Saxon, not be['o]n, but be['o]dh and be['o].
s. 398. In the Deutsche Grammatik, i. 1051, it is stated that the Anglo-Saxon forms be['o], bist, bidh, beodh, or be['o], have not a present, but a future sense; that whilst am means I am, be['o] means I shall be; and that in the older languages it is only where the form am is not found that be has the power of a present form. The same root occurs in the Slavonic and Lithuanic tongues with the same power; as, esmi=I am; b['u]su=I shall be, Lithuanic.--Esmu=I am; buhshu=I shall be, Livonic.--Jesm=I am; budu=I shall be, Slavonic.--Gsem=I am; budu=I shall be, Bohemian. This, however, proves, not that there is in Anglo-Saxon a future tense (or form), but that the word be['o] has a future sense. There is no fresh tense where there is no fresh form.
The following is a specimen of the future power of be['o]n in Anglo-Saxon:--"_Hi ne be['o]dh na c['i]lde, sodhlice, on domesdaege, ac be['o]dh swa micele menn swa swa hi, migton be['o]n gif hi full weoxon on gewunlicre ylde._"--Aelfric's Homilies. "They will not be children, forsooth, on Domesday, but will be as much {346} (so muckle) men as they might be if they were full grown (waxen) in customary age."
s. 399. If we consider the word be['o]n like the word weordhan (see below) to mean not so much to be as to become, we get an element of the idea of futurity. Things which are becoming anything have yet something further to either do or suffer. Again, from the idea of futurity we get the idea of contingency, and this explains the subjunctive power of be. In English we often say may for shall, and the same was done in Anglo-Saxon.--"Ic dhe secge, he[`o] is be dham h['u]se dhe Fegor h['a]tte, and n['a]n man nis dhe hig w['i]te (shall, may know) aer dh['a]m myclan d['o]me."--Aelfric's Homilies, 44.
s. 400. Am.--Of this form it should be stated, that the letter -m is no part of the original word. It is the sign of the first person, just as it is in all the Indo-European languages.
It should also be stated, that, although the fact be obscured, and although the changes be insufficiently accounted for, the forms am, art, are, and is, are not, like am and was, parts of different words, but forms of one and the same word; in other terms, that, although between am and be there is no etymological connexion, there is one between am and is. This we collect from the comparison of the Indo-European languages.
1. 2. 3.
Sanskrit Asmi. Asi. Asti. Zend Ahmi. Ani. Ashti. Greek [Greek: Eimi]. [Greek: Eis]. [Greek: Ei]. Latin Sum. Es. Esti. Lithuanic Esmi. Essi. Esti. Old Slavonic Yesmy. Yesi. Yesty. Moeso-Gothic Im. Is. Ist. Old Saxon -- [58]Is. Ist. Anglo-Saxon Eom. Eart. Is. Icelandic Em. Ert. Er. English Am. Art. Is.
In English and Anglo-Saxon the word is found in the {347} present indicative only. In English it is inflected through both numbers; in Anglo-Saxon in the singular number only. The Anglo-Saxon plurals are forms of the German seyn, a verb whereof we have, in the present English, no vestiges.
Worth.--In the following lines of Scott, the word worth=is, and is a fragment of the regular Anglo-Saxon verb weordhan=to be, or to become; German, werden.
Woe worth the chase, woe worth the day, That cost thy life, my gallant grey.
Lady of the Lake.
* * * * *
{348}
XXIX. THE PRESENT PARTICIPLE
s. 401. The present participle, called also the active participle and the participle in -ing, is formed from the original word by adding -ing; as, move, moving. In the older languages the termination was more marked, being -nd. Like the Latin participle in -ns, it was originally declined. The Moeso-Gothic and Old High German forms are habands and hap[^e]nt[^e]r=having, respectively. The -s in the one language, and the -[^e]r in the other, are the signs of the case and gender. In the Old Saxon and Anglo-Saxon the forms are -and and -ande; as bindand, bindande=binding. In all the Norse languages, ancient and modern, the -d is preserved. So it is in the Old Lowland Scotch, and in many of the modern provincial dialects of England, where strikand, goand, is said for striking, going. In Staffordshire, where the -ing is pronounced -ingg, there is a fuller sound than that of the current English. In Old English the form in -nd is predominant, in Middle English, the use fluctuates, and in New English the termination -ing is universal. In the Scotch of the modern writers we find the form -in.
The rising sun o'er Galston muirs Wi' glorious light was glintin'; The hares were hirplin' down the furs, The lav'rocks they were chantin'.
BURNS' Holy Fair.
It is with the oblique cases of the present participles of the classical languages, rather than with the nominative, that we must compare the corresponding participle in Gothic; e.g., {349} [Greek: echont-os] (ekhontos), Greek; habent-is, Latin; hap[^e]nt-[^e]r, Old High German.
s. 402. It has often been remarked that the participle is used in many languages as a substantive. This is true in Greek,
[Greek: Ho prasson]=the actor, when a male. [Greek: He prassousa]=the actor, when a female. [Greek: To pratton]=the active principle of a thing.
s. 403. But it is also stated, that, in the English language, the participle is used as a substantive in a greater degree than elsewhere, and that it is used in several cases and in both numbers, e.g.,
Rising early is healthy, There is health in rising early. This is the advantage of rising early. The risings in the North, &c.
Archbishop Whately has some remarks on this substantival power in his Logic.
Some remarks of Mr. R. Taylor, in the Introduction to his edition of Tooke's Diversions of Purley, modify this view. According to these, the -ing in words like rising is not the -ing of the present participle; neither has it originated in the Anglo-Saxon -end. It is rather the -ing in words like morning, which is anything but a participle of the non-existent verb morn, and which has originated in the Anglo-Saxon substantival termination -ung. Upon this Rask writes as follows:--"Gitsung, gewilnung=desire; swutelung=manifestation; claensung=a cleansing; sceawung=view, contemplation; eordh beofung=an earthquake; gesomnung=an assembly. This termination is chiefly used in forming substantives from verbs of the first class in -ian; as, h['a]lgung=consecration, from h['a]lgian=to consecrate. These verbs are all feminine."--Anglo-Saxon Grammar, p. 107.
Now, whatever may be the theory of the origin of the termination -ing in old phrases like rising early is healthy, it cannot apply to expressions of recent introduction. Here the direct origin in -ung is out of the question. {350}
The view, then, that remains to be taken of the forms in question is this:
1. That the older forms in -ing are substantival in origin, and=the Anglo-Saxon -ung.
2. That the latter ones are participial, and have been formed on a false analogy.
* * * * *
{351}
XXX. THE PAST PARTICIPLE
s. 404. The participle in -en.--In the Anglo-Saxon this participle was declined like the adjectives. Like the adjectives, it is, in the present English, undeclined.
In Anglo-Saxon it always ended in -en, as sungen, funden, bunden. In English this -en is often wanting, as found, bound; the word bounden being antiquated. Words where the -en is wanting may be viewed in two lights; 1, they may be looked upon as participles that have lost their termination; 2, they may be considered as praeterites with a participial sense.
s. 405. Drank, drunk, drunken.--With all words wherein the vowel of the plural differs from that of the singular, the participle takes the plural form. To say I have drunk, is to use an ambiguous expression; since drunk may be either a participle minus its termination, or a praeterite with a participial sense. To say I have drank, is to use a praeterite for a participle. To say I have drunken, is to use an unexceptionable form.
In all words with a double form, as spake and spoke, brake and broke, clave and clove, the participle follows the form in o, as spoken, broken, cloven. Spaken, braken, claven, are impossible forms. There are degrees in laxity of language, and to say the spear is broke is better than to say the spear is brake.
These two statements bear upon the future history of the praeterite. That of the two forms sang and sung, one will, in the course of language, become obsolete is nearly certain; and, as the plural form is also that of the participle, it is the plural form which is most likely to be the surviving one. {352}
s. 406. As a general rule, we find the participle in -en wherever the praeterite is strong; indeed, the participle in -en may be called the strong participle, or the participle of the strong conjugation. Still the two forms do not always coincide. In mow, mowed, mown; sow, sowed, sown; and several other words, we find the participle strong, and the praeterite weak. I remember no instances of the converse. This is only another way of saying that the praeterite has a greater tendency to pass from strong to weak than the participle.
s. 407. In the Latin language the change from s to r, and vice vers[^a], is very common. We have the double forms arbor and arbos, honor and honos, &c. Of this change we have a few specimens in English. The words rear and raise, as compared with each other, are examples. In Anglo-Saxon a few words undergo a similar change in the plural number of the strong praeterites.
Ce['o]se, I choose; ce['a]s, I chose; curon, we chose; gecoren, chosen. Forle['o]se, I lose; forle['a]s, I lost; forluron, we lost; forloren, lost. Hreose, I rush; hre['a]s, I rushed; hruron, we rushed; gehroren, rushed.
This accounts for the participial form forlorn, or lost, in New High German verloren. In Milton's lines,
---- the piercing air Burns frore, and cold performs the effect of fire.
Paradise Lost, b. ii.
we have a form from the Anglo-Saxon participle gefroren=frozen.
s. 408. The participle in -d, -t, or -ed.--In the Anglo-Saxon this participle was declined like the adjective. Like the adjective, it is, in the present English, undeclined.
In Anglo-Saxon it differed in form from the praeterite, inasmuch as it ended in -ed, or -t, whereas the praeterite ended in -ode, -de, or -te: as, lufode, baernde, dypte, praeterites; gelufod, baerned, dypt, participles.
As the ejection of the e reduces words like baerned and baernde to the same form, it is easy to account for the present {353} identity of form between the weak praeterites and the participles in -d: e. g., I moved, I have moved, &c.
s. 409. In the older writers, and in works written, like Thomson's Castle of Indolence, in imitation of them, we find prefixed to the praeterite participle the letter y-, as yclept=called: yclad=clothed: ydrad=dreaded.
The following are the chief facts and the current opinion concerning this prefix:--
1. It has grown out of the fuller forms ge-: Anglo-Saxon, ge-: Old Saxon, gi-: Moeso-Gothic, ga-: Old High German, ka-, cha-, ga-, ki-, gi-.
2. It occurs in each and all of the Germanic languages of the Gothic stock.
3. It occurs, with a few fragmentary exceptions, in none of the Scandinavian languages of the Gothic stock.
4. In Anglo-Saxon it occasionally indicates a difference of sense; as h[^a]ten=called, ge-h[^a]ten=promised, boren=borne, ge-boren=born.
5. It occurs in nouns as well as verbs.
6. Its power, in the case of nouns, is generally some idea of association, or collection.--Moeso-Gothic, sinths=a journey, ga-sintha=a companion; Old High German, perc=hill; ki-perki (ge-birge)=a range of hills.
7. But it has also a frequentative power; a frequentative power which is, in all probability, secondary to its collective power: since things which recur frequently recur with a tendency to collection or association; Middle High German, ge-rassel=rustling; ge-rumpel=c-rumple.
8. And it has also the power of expressing the possession of a quality.
Anglo-Saxon. English. Anglo-Saxon. Latin. Feax Hair Ge-feax Comatus. Heorte Heart Ge-heort Cordatus. Stence Odour Ge-stence Odorus.
This power is also a collective, since every quality is associated with the object that possesses it: a sea with waves=a wavy sea. {354}
9. Hence it is probable that the ga-, ki-, or gi-, Gothic, is the cum of Latin languages. Such is Grimm's view, as given in Deutsche Grammatik, i. 1016.
Concerning this, it may be said that it is deficient in an essential point. It does not show how the participle past is collective. Undoubtedly it may be said that every such participle is in the condition of words like ge-feax and ge-heort; i. e., that they imply an association between the object and the action or state. But this does not seem to be Grimm's view; he rather suggests that the ge- may have been a prefix to verbs in general, originally attached to all their forms, but finally abandoned everywhere except in the case of the participle. The theory of this prefix has yet to assume a satisfactory form.
* * * * *
{355}
XXXI. COMPOSITION
s. 410. In the following words, amongst many others, we have palpable and indubitable specimens of composition. Day-star, vine-yard, sun-beam, apple-tree, ship-load, silver-smith, &c. The words palpable and indubitable have been used, because, in many cases, as will be seen hereafter, it is difficult to determine whether a word be a true compound or not.
Now, in each of the compounds quoted above, it may be seen that it is the second word which is qualified, or defined, by the first, and that it is not the first which is qualified or defined, by the second. Of yards, beams, trees, loads, smiths, there may be many sorts, and, in order to determine what particular sort of yard, beam, tree, load, or smith, may be meant, the words vine, sun, apple, ship, and silver, are prefixed. In compound words it is the first term that defines or particularises the second.
s. 411. That the idea given by the word apple-tree is not referable to the words apple and tree, irrespective of the order in which they occur, may be seen by reversing the position of them. The word tree-apple, although not existing in the language, is as correct a word as thorn-apple. In tree-apple, the particular sort of apple meant is denoted by the word tree, and if there were in our gardens various sorts of plants called apples, of which some grew along the ground and others upon trees, such a word as tree-apple would be required in order to be opposed to earth-apple, or ground-apple, or some word of the kind.
In the compound words tree-apple and apple-tree, we have the same elements differently arranged. However, as the {356} word tree-apple is not current in the language, the class of compounds indicated by it may seem to be merely imaginary. Nothing is farther from being the case. A tree-rose is a rose of a particular sort. The generality of roses being on shrubs, this grows on a tree. Its peculiarity consists in this fact, and this particular character is expressed by the word tree prefixed. A rose-tree is a tree of a particular sort, distinguished from apple-trees, and trees in general (in other words, particularised or defined) by the word rose prefixed.
A ground-nut is a nut particularised by growing in the ground. A nut-ground is a ground particularised by producing nuts.
A finger-ring, as distinguished from ear-rings, and from rings in general (and so particularised), is a ring for the finger. A ring finger, as distinguished from fore-fingers, and from fingers in general (and so particularised), is a finger whereon rings are worn.
s. 412. At times this rule seems to be violated. The words spitfire and daredevil seem exceptions to it. At the first glance it seems, in the case of a spitfire, that what he (or she) spits is fire; and that, in the case of a daredevil, what he (or she) dares is the devil. In this case the initial words spit and dare, are particularised by the final ones fire and devil. The true idea, however, confirms the original rule. A spitfire voids his fire by spitting. A daredevil, in meeting the fiend, would not shrink from him, but would defy him. A spitfire is not one who spits fire, but one whose fire is spit. A daredevil is not one who dares even the devil, but one by whom the devil is even dared.
s. 413. Of the two elements of a compound word, which is the most important? In one sense the latter, in another sense the former. The latter word is the most essential; since the general idea of trees must exist before it can be defined or particularised; so becoming the idea which we have in apple-tree, rose-tree, &c. The former word, however, is the most influential. It is by this that the original idea is qualified. The latter word is the staple original element: the former is the superadded influencing element. Compared with each {357} other, the former element is active, the latter passive. Etymologically speaking, the former element, in English compounds, is the most important.
s. 414. Most numerous are the observations that bear upon the composition of words; e.g., how nouns combine with nouns, as in sunbeam; nouns with verbs, as in daredevil, &c. It is thought sufficient in the present work to be content with, 1. defining the meaning of the term composition; 2. explaining the nature of some obscure compounds.
Composition is the joining together, in language, of two different words, and treating the combination as a single term. Observe the words in italics.
In language.--A great number of our compounds, like the word merry-making, are divided by the sign -, or the hyphen. It is very plain that if all words spelt with a hyphen were to be considered as compounds, the formation of them would be not a matter of speech, or language, but one of writing or spelling. This distinguishes compounds in language from mere printers' compounds.
Different.--In Old High German we find the form selp-selpo. Here there is the junction of two words, but not the junction of two different ones. This distinguishes composition from gemination.--Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 405.
Words.--In father-s, clear-er, four-th, &c., there is the addition of a letter or a syllable, and it may be even of the part of a word. There is no addition, however, of a whole word. This distinguishes composition from derivation.
Treating the combination as a single term.--In determining, in certain cases, between derived words and compound words, there is an occasional perplexity; the perplexity, however, is far greater in determining between a compound word and two words. In the eyes of one grammarian the term mountain height may be as truly a compound word as sunbeam. In the eyes of another grammarian it may be no compound word, but two words, just as Alpine height is two words; mountain being dealt with as an adjective. It is in the determination of this that the accent plays an important part. This fact was foreshadowed in the Chapter upon Accents. {358}
s. 415. The attention of the reader is drawn to the following line, slightly altered, from Churchill:--
"Then r['e]st, my fri['e]nd, and sp['a]re thy pr['e]cious br['e]ath."
On each of the syllables rest, friend, spare, prec-, breath, there is an accent. Each of these syllables must be compared with the one that precedes it; rest with then, friend with my, and so on throughout the line. Compared with the word and, the word spare is not only accented, but the accent is conspicuous and prominent. There is so little on and, and so much on spare, that the disparity of accent is very manifest.
Now, if in the place of and, there was some other word, a word not so much accented as spare, but still more accented than and, this disparity would be diminished, and the accents of the two words might be said to be at par, or nearly so. As said before, the line was slightly altered from Churchill, the real reading being
Then r['e]st, my fri['e]nd, spare, spare thy pr['e]cious breath.--
In the true reading we actually find what had previously only been supposed. In the words spare, spare, the accents are nearly at par. Such the difference between accent at par and disparity of accent.
Good illustrations of the parity and disparity of accent may be drawn from certain names of places. Let there be such a sentence as the following: the lime house near the bridge north of the new port. Compare the parity of accent on the separate words lime and house, bridge and north, new and port, with the disparity of accent in the compound words L['i]mehouse, Br['i]dgenorth, and N['e]wport. The separate words beef steak, where the accent is nearly at par, compared with the compound word swe['e]pstakes, where there is a great disparity of accent, are further illustrations of the same difference.
s. 416. The difference between a compound word and two words is greatest where the first is an adjective. This we see in comparing such terms as the following: bl['a]ck b['i]rd, meaning a bird that is black, with bl['a]ckbird=the Latin merula; or bl['u]e b['e]ll, meaning a bell that is blue, with bl['u]ebell, the flower. {359} Expressions like a sh['a]rp edg['e]d instrument, meaning an instrument that is sharp and has edges, as opposed to a sh['a]rp-edged instrument, meaning an instrument with sharp edges, further exemplify this difference.
Subject to four small classes of exceptions, it may be laid down, that, in the English language, there is no composition unless there is either a change of form or a change of accent.
The reader is now informed, that unless, in what has gone before, he has taken an exception to either a statement or an inference, he has either seen beyond what has been already laid down by the author, or else has read him with insufficient attention. This may be shown by drawing a distinction between a compound form and a compound idea.
In the words a red house, each word preserves its natural and original meaning, and the statement is that a house is red. By a parity of reasoning a mad house should mean a house that is mad; and, provided that each word retain its natural meaning and its natural accent, such is the fact. Let a house mean, as it often does, a family. Then the phrase, a mad house, means that the house, or family, is mad, just as a red house means that the house is red. Such, however, is not the current meaning of the word. Every one knows that a mad house means a house for mad men; in which case it is treated as a compound word, and has a marked accent on the first syllable, just as L['i]mehouse has. Now, compared with the word red house, meaning a house of a red colour, and compared with the words mad house, meaning a deranged family, the word m['a]dhouse, in its common sense, expresses a compound idea; as opposed to two ideas, or a double idea. The word beef steak is evidently a compound idea; but, as there is no disparity of accent, it is not a compound word. Its sense is compound; its form is not compound, but double. This indicates the objection anticipated, which is this: viz., that a definition, which would exclude such a word as beef steak from the list of compounds, is, for that very reason, exceptionable. I answer to this, that the term in question is a compound idea, and not a compound form; in other words, that it is a compound in logic, but not a compound in etymology. {360} Now etymology, taking cognisance of forms only, has nothing to do with ideas, except so far as they influence forms.
Such is the commentary upon the words, "treating the combination as a single term;" in other words, such the difference between a compound word and two words. The rule, being repeated, stands (subject to the four classes of exceptions) thus: There is no true composition without either a change of form or a change of accent. As I wish to be clear upon this point, I shall illustrate the statement by its application.
The word tr['e]e-rose is often pronounced tr['e]e r['o]se; that is, with the accent at par. It is compound in the one case; it is two words in the other.
The words mountain ash and mountain height are generally (perhaps always) pronounced with an equal accent on the syllables mount- and ash, mount- and height, respectively. In this case the word mountain must be dealt with as an adjective, and the words considered as two. The word mo['u]ntain wave is often pronounced with a visible diminution of accent on the last syllable. In this case there is a disparity of accent, and the word is compound.
s. 417. The following quotation indicates a further cause of perplexity in determining between compound words and two words:--
1.
A wet sheet and a blowing gale, A breeze that follows fast; That fills the white and swelling sail, And bends the gallant mast.
ALLAN CUNNINGHAM.
2.
Britannia needs no bulwarks, No towers along the steep; Her march is o'er the mountain-wave, Her home is on the deep.
THOMAS CAMPBELL.
To speak first of the word (or words) gallant mast. If gallant mean brave, there are two words. If the words be two, there {361} is a stronger accent on mast. If the accent on mast be stronger, the rhyme with fast is more complete; in other words, the metre favours the notion of the words being considered as two. Gallant-mast, however, is a compound word, with an especial nautical meaning. In this case the accent is stronger on gal- and weaker on -mast. This, however, is not the state of things that the metre favours. The same applies to mountain wave. The same person who in prose would throw a stronger accent on mount- and a weaker one on wave (so dealing with the word as a compound), might, in poetry, make the words two, by giving to the last syllable a parity of accent.
The following quotation from Ben Jonson may be read in two ways; and the accent may vary with the reading.
1.
Lay thy bow of pearl apart, And thy silver shining quiver.
2.
Lay thy bow of pearl apart, And thy silver-shining quiver.
Cynthia's Revels.
s. 418. On certain words wherein the fact of their being compound is obscured.--Composition is the addition of a word to a word, derivation is the addition of letters or syllables to a word. In a compound form each element has a separate and independent existence; in a derived form, only one of the elements has such. Now it is very possible that in an older stage of a language two words may exist, may be put together, and may so form a compound; at the time in point each word having a separate and independent existence: whilst, in a later stage of language, only one of these words may have a separate and independent existence, the other having become obsolete. In this case a compound word would take the appearance of a derived one, since but one of its elements could be exhibited as a separate and independent word. Such is the case with, amongst others, the word bishopric. In the present language the word ric has no separate and independent existence. For all this, the word {362} is a true compound, since, in Anglo-Saxon, we have the noun r['i]ce as a separate, independent word, signifying kingdom or domain.
Again, without becoming obsolete, a word may alter its form. This is the case with most of our adjectives in -ly. At present they appear derivative; their termination -ly having no separate and independent existence. The older language, however, shows that they are compounds; since -ly is nothing else than -lic, Anglo-Saxon; -lih, Old High German; -leiks, Moeso-Gothic;=like, or similis, and equally with it an independent separate word.
For the following words a separate independent root is presumed rather than shown. It is presumed, however, on grounds that satisfy the etymologist.
Mis-, as in misdeed, &c.--Moeso-Gothic, miss[^o]=in turns; Old Norse, [^a] mis=alternately; Middle High German, misse=mistake. The original notion alternation, thence change, thence defect. Compare the Greek [Greek: allos].--Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 470.
Dom, as in wisdom, &c.--The substantive d[^o]m presumed.--Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 491.
Hood and head, as in Godhead, manhood, &c.--The substantive h['a]ids=person, order, kind, presumed.--Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 497. Nothing to do with the word head.
Ship, as in friendship.--Anglo-Saxon, -scipe and -sceaeft; German, -schaft; Moeso-Gothic, gaskafts=a creature, or creation. The substantive skafts or skap presumed. The -skip or -scape in landskip is only an older form.--Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 522.
Less, as in sleepless, &c., has nothing to do with less. Derived from l['a]us, l[^o]s, destitute of=Latin, expers.--Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 565.
For the further details, which are very numerous, see the Deutsche Grammatik, vol. iii.
s. 419. "Subject to four classes of exceptions, it may be laid down that there is no true composition unless there is either a change of form or a change of accent."--Such is the statement made in p. 359. The first class of exceptions consists {363} of those words where the natural tendency to disparity of accent is traversed by some rule of euphony. For example, let two words be put together, which at their point of contact form a combination of sounds foreign to our habits of pronunciation. The rarity of the combination will cause an effort in utterance. The effort in utterance will cause an accent to be laid on the latter half of the compound. This will equalize the accent, and abolish the disparity. The word monkshood, the name of a flower (aconitum napellus), where, to my ear at least, there is quite as much accent on the -hood as on the monks-, may serve in the way of illustration. Monks is one word, hood another. When joined together, the h- of the -hood is put in immediate opposition with the -s of the monks-. Hence the combination monkshood. At the letters s and h is the point of contact. Now the sound of s followed immediately by the sound of h is a true aspirate. But true aspirates are rare in the English language. Being of rare occurrence, the pronunciation of them is a matter of attention and effort; and this attention and effort creates an accent which otherwise would be absent. Hence words like monksh['o]od, well-h['e]ad, and some others.
Real reduplications of consonants, as in hop-pole, may have the same parity of accent with the true aspirates: and for the same reasons. They are rare combinations that require effort and attention.
The second class of exceptions contains those words wherein between the first element and the second there is so great a disparity, either in the length of the vowel, or the length of the syllable en masse, as to counteract the natural tendency of the first element to become accented. One of the few specimens of this class (which after all may consist of double words) is the term upst['a]nding. Here it should be remembered, that words like haph['a]zard, foolh['a]rdy, uph['o]lder, and withh['o]ld come under the first class of the exceptions.
The third class of exceptions contains words like perch['a]nce and perh['a]ps. In all respects but one these are double words, just as by chance is a double word. Per, however, differs from by in having no separate existence. This sort of words {364} we owe to the multiplicity of elements (classical and Gothic) in the English language.
To anticipate objections to the rule respecting the disparity of accent, it may be well to state in fresh terms a fact already indicated, viz., that the same combination of words may in one sense be compound, and in the other double (or two). An uphill game gives us the combination up + hill as a compound. He ran up hill gives us the combination up + hill as two words. So it is with down + hill, down + right, and other words. Man-servant, cock-sparrow, &c., are double or compound, as they are pronounced m['a]n-s['e]rvant, m['a]n-servant, c['o]ck-sp['a]rrow, or c['o]ck-sparrow.
The fourth class is hypothetical. I can, however, imagine that certain compounds may, if used almost exclusively in poetry, and with the accent at par, become so accented even in the current language.
s. 420. For a remark on the words peacock, peahen, see the Chapter upon Gender.--If these words be rendered masculine or feminine by the addition of the elements -cock and -hen, the statements made in the beginning of the present chapter are invalidated. Since, if the word pea- be particularized, qualified, or defined by the words -cock and -hen, the second term defines or particularises the first, which is contrary to the rule of p. 355. The truth, however, is, that the words -cock and -hen are defined by the prefix pea-. Preparatory to the exhibition of this, let us remember that the word pea (although now found in composition only) is a true and independent substantive, the name of a species of fowl, like pheasant, partridge, or any other appellation. It is the Latin pavo, German pfau. Now, if the word peacock mean a pea (pfau or pavo) that is a male, then do wood-cock, black-cock, and bantam-cock, mean woods, blacks, and bantams that are male. Or if the word peahen mean a pea (pfau or pavo) that is female, then do moorhen and guineahen mean moors and guineas that are female. Again, if a peahen mean a pea (pfau or pavo) that is female, then does the compound pheasant-hen mean the same as hen-pheasant; which is not the case. The fact is that peacock means a cock that is a pea (pfau or pavo); {365} peahen means a hen that is a pea (pfau or pavo); and, finally, peafowl means a fowl that is a pea (pfau or pavo). In the same way moorfowl means, not a moor that is connected with a fowl, but a fowl that is connected with a moor.
s. 421. It must be clear, ex vi termini, that in every compound word there are two parts; i. e., the whole or part of the original, and the whole or part of the superadded word. In the most perfect forms of inflection there is a third element, viz., a vowel, consonant, or syllable that joins the first word with the second.
In the older forms of all the Gothic languages the presence of this third element was the rule rather than the exception. In the present English it exists in but few words.
a. The -a- in black-a-moor is possibly such a connecting element.
b. The -in- in night-in-gale is most probably such a connecting element. Compare the German form nacht-i-gale, and remember the tendency of vowels to take the sound of -ng before g.
s. 422. Improper compounds.--The -s- in words like Thur-s-day, hunt-s-man, may be one of two things.
a. It may be the sign of the genitive case, so that Thursday=Thoris dies. In this case the word is an improper compound, since it is like the word pater-familias in Latin, in a common state of syntactical construction.
b. It may be a connecting sound, like the -i- in nacht-i-gale. Reasons for this view occur in the following fact:--
In the Modern German languages the genitive case of feminine nouns ends otherwise than in -s. Nevertheless, the sound of -s- occurs in composition equally, whether the noun it follows be masculine or feminine. This fact, as far as it goes, makes it convenient to consider the sound in question as a connective rather than a case. Probably, it is neither one nor the other exactly, but the effect of a false analogy.
s. 423. Decomposites.--"Composition is the joining together of two words."--See p. 357.
In the first edition the sentence ran "two or more" words; being so written to account for compounds like mid-ship-man, {366} gentle-man-like, &c., where the number of verbal elements seems to amount to three.
Nevertheless, the caution was unnecessary. Compound radicals like midship and gentleman, are, for the purposes of composition, single words. Compounds wherein one element is compound are called decomposites.
s. 424. The present chapter closes with the notice of two classes of words. They are mentioned now, not because they are compounds, but because they can be treated of here more conveniently than elsewhere.
There are a number of words which are never found by themselves; or, if so found, have never the same sense that they have in combination. Mark the word combination. The terms in question are points of combination, not of composition: since they form not the parts of words, but the parts of phrases. Such are the expressions time and tide--might and main--rede me my riddle--pay your shot--rhyme and reason, &c. These words are evidently of the same class, though not of the same species with bishopric, colewort, spillikin, gossip, mainswearer, and the words quoted in p. 362. These last-mentioned terms give us obsolete words preserved in composition. The former give us obsolete words preserved in combination.
The other words are etymological curiosities. They may occur in any language. The English, however, from the extent of its classical element, is particularly abundant in them. It is a mere accident that they are all compound words.
* * * * *
{367}
XXXII. ON DERIVATION AND INFLECTION
s. 425. Derivation, like etymology, is a word used in a wide and in a limited sense. In the wide sense of the term every word, except it be in the simple form of a root, is a derived word. In this sense the cases, numbers, and genders of nouns, the persons, moods, and tenses of verbs, the ordinal numbers, the diminutives, and even the compound words, are alike matters of derivation. In the wide sense of the term the word fathers, from father, is equally in a state of derivation with the word strength, from strong.
In the use of the word, even in its limited sense, there is considerable laxity and uncertainty.
Gender, number, case.--These have been called the accidents of the noun, and these it has been agreed to separate from derivation in its stricter sense, or from derivation properly so called, and to class together under the name of declension. Nouns are declined.
Person, number, tense, voice.--These have been called the accidents of a verb, and these it has been agreed to separate from derivation properly so called, and to class together under the name of conjugation. Verbs are conjugated.
Conjugation and declension constitute inflection. Nouns and verbs, speaking generally, are inflected.
Inflection, a part of derivation in its wider sense, is separated from derivation properly so called, or from derivation in its limited sense.
The degrees of comparison, or certain derived forms of adjectives; the ordinals, or certain derived forms of the numerals; the diminutives, &c., or certain derived forms of the substantive, have been separated from derivation properly {368} so called. I am not certain, however, that for so doing there is any better reason than mere convenience. By some the decrees of comparison are considered as points of inflection.
Derivation proper, the subject of the present chapter, comprises all the changes that words undergo, which are not referable to some of the preceding heads. As such, it is, in its details, a wider field than even composition. The details, however, are not entered into.
s. 426. Derivation proper may be divided according to a variety of principles. Amongst others,
I. According to the evidence.--In the evidence that a word is not simple, but derived, there are at least two degrees.
A. That the word strength is a derived word I collect to a certainty from the word strong, an independent form, which I can separate from it. Of the nature of the word strength there is the clearest evidence, or evidence of the first degree.
B. _Fowl, hail, nail, sail, tail, soul; in Anglo-Saxon, fugel, haegel, naegel, segel, taegel, sawel._ --These words are by the best grammarians considered as derivatives. Now, with these words I can not do what was done with the word strength, I can not take from them the part which I look upon as the derivational addition, and after that leave an independent word. Strength - th is a true word; fowl or fugel - l is no true word. If I believe these latter words to be derivations at all, I do it because I find in words like handle, &c., the -l as a derivational addition. Yet, as the fact of a word being sometimes used as a derivational addition does not preclude it from being at other times a part of the root, the evidence that the words in question are not simple, but derived, is not cogent. In other words, it is evidence of the second degree.
II. According to the effect.--The syllable -en in the word whiten changes the noun white into a verb. This is its effect. We may so classify as to arrange combinations like -en (whose effect is to give the idea of the verb) in one order; whilst combinations like th (whose effect is, as in the word strength, to give the idea of abstraction) form another order.
III. According to the form.--Sometimes the derivational {369} element is a vowel (as the -ie in doggie); sometimes a consonant combined: in other words, a syllable (as the -en in whiten); sometimes a change of vowel without any addition (as the i in tip, compared with top); sometimes a change of consonant without any addition (as the z in prize, compared with price; sometimes it is a change of accent, like a s['u]rvey, compared with to surv['e]y. To classify derivations in this manner is to classify them according to their form. For the detail of the derivative forms, see Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 89-405.
IV. According to the historical origin of the derivational elements.--For this see the Chapter upon Hybridism.
V. According to the number of the derivational elements.--In fisher, as compared with fish, there is but one derivational affix. In fishery, as compared with fish, the number of derivational elements is two.
s. 427. The list (taken from Walker) of words alluded to in p. 293, is as follows:--
Nouns. Verbs.
['A]bsent abs['e]nt. ['A]bstract abstr['a]ct. ['A]ccent acc['e]nt. ['A]ffix aff['i]x. A['u]gment augm['e]nt. C['o]lleague coll['e]ague. C['o]mpact comp['a]ct. C['o]mpound comp['o]und. C['o]mpress compr['e]ss. C['o]ncert conc['e]rt. C['o]ncrete concr['e]te. C['o]nduct cond['u]ct. C['o]nfine conf['i]ne. C['o]nflict confl['i]ct. C['o]nserve cons['e]rve. C['o]nsort cons['o]rt. C['o]ntract contr['a]ct. C['o]ntrast contr['a]st. C['o]nverse conv['e]rse. C['o]nvert conv['e]rt. D['e]sert des['e]rt. D['e]scant desc['a]nt. D['i]gest dig['e]st. ['E]ssay ess['a]y. ['E]xtract extr['a]ct. F['e]rment ferm['e]nt. Fr['e]quent freq['u]ent. ['I]mport imp['o]rt. ['I]ncense inc['e]nse. ['I]nsult ins['u]lt. ['O]bject obj['e]ct. P['e]rfume perf['u]me. P['e]rmit perm['i]t. Pr['e]fix pref['i]x. Pr['e]mise prem['i]se. Pr['e]sage pres['a]ge. Pr['e]sent pres['e]nt. Pr['o]duce prod['u]ce. Pr['o]ject proj['e]ct. Pr['o]test prot['e]st. R['e]bel reb['e]l. R['e]cord rec['o]rd. {370} R['e]fuse ref['u]se. S['u]bject subj['e]ct. S['u]rvey surv['e]y. T['o]rment torm['e]nt. Tr['a]nsfer transf['e]r. Tr['a]nsport. transp['o]rt.
s. 428. Churl, earl, owl, fowl, hail, nail, sail, snail, tail, hazel, needle, soul, teazle, fair, beam, bottom, arm, team, worm, heaven, morn, dust, ghost, breast, rest, night, spright, blind, harp, flax, fox, finch, stork, &c. All these words, for certain etymological reasons, are currently considered, by the latest philologists, as derivatives. Notwithstanding the general prevalence of a fuller form in the Anglo-Saxon, it is clear that, in respect to the evidence, they come under division B.
s. 429. Forms like tip, from top, price and prize, &c., are of importance in general etymology. Let it be received as a theory (as with some philologists is really the case) that fragmentary sounds like the -en in whiten, the -th in strength, &c., were once words; or, changing the expression, let it be considered that all derivation was once composition. Let this view be opposed. The first words that are brought to militate against it are those like tip and prize, where, instead of any addition, there is only a change; and, consequently, no vestiges of an older word. This argument, good as far as it goes, is rebutted in the following manner. Let the word top have attached to it a second word, in which second word there is a small vowel. Let this small vowel act upon the full one in top, changing it to tip. After this, let the second word be ejected. We then get the form tip by the law of accommodation, and not as an immediate sign of derivation. The i in chick (from cock) may be thus accounted for, the -en in chicken being supposed to have exerted, first, an influence of accommodation, and afterwards to have fallen off. The i in chick may, however, be accounted for by simple processes.
s. 430. In words like bishopric, and many others mentioned in the last chapter, we had compound words under the appearance of derived ones; in words like upmost, and many others, we have derivation under the appearance of composition.
* * * * *
{371}
XXXIII. ADVERBS
s. 431. Adverbs.--The adverbs are capable of being classified after a variety of principles.
Firstly, they may be divided according to their meaning. In this case we speak of the adverbs of time, place, number, manner. This division is logical rather than etymological.
A division, however, which although logical bears upon etymology, is the following:--
Well, better, ill, worse.--Here we have a class of adverbs expressive of degree, or intensity. Adverbs of this kind are capable of taking an inflection, viz., that of the comparative and superlative degrees.
Now, then, here, there.--In the idea expressed by these words there are no degrees of intensity. Adverbs of this kind are incapable of taking any inflection.
Words like better and worse are adjectives or adverbs as they are joined to nouns or verbs.
Adverbs differ from nouns and verbs in being susceptible of one sort of inflection only, viz., that of degree.
Secondly, adverbs may be divided according to their form and origin. This is truly an etymological classification.
A Better, worse.--Here the combination of sounds gives equally an adjective and an adverb. This book is better than that--here better agrees with book, and is therefore adjectival. This looks better than that--here better qualifies looks, and is therefore adverbial. Again; to do a thing with violence is equivalent to do a thing violently. This shows how adverbs may arise out of cases. In words like the English better, the Latin vi=violenter, the Greek [Greek: kalon]=[Greek: kalos], we have {372} adjectives in their degrees, and substantives in their cases, with adverbial powers. In other words, nouns are deflected from their natural sense to an adverbial one. Adverbs of this kind are adverbs of deflection.
B Brightly, bravely.--Here an adjective is rendered adverbial by the addition of the derivative syllable -ly. Adverbs like brightly, &c., may (laxly speaking) be called adverbs of derivation.
C Now.--This word has not satisfactorily been shown to have originated as any other part of speech but as an adverb. Words of this sort are adverbs absolute.
When, now, well, worse, better.--here the adverbial expression consists in a single word, and is simple. To-day, yesterday, not at all, somewhat--here the adverbial expression consists of a compound word, or a phrase. This indicates the division of adverbs into simple and complex.
s. 432. The adverbs of deflection (of the chief importance in etymology) may be arranged after a variety of principles. I. According to the part of speech from whence they originate. This is often an adjective, often a substantive, at times a pronoun, occasionally a preposition, rarely a verb. II. According to the part of the inflection from whence they originate. This is often an ablative case, often a neuter accusative, often a dative, occasionally a genitive.
The following notices are miscellaneous rather than systematic.
Else, unawares, eftsoons.--These are the genitive forms of adjectives. By rights is a word of the same sort.
Once, twice, thrice.--These are the genitive forms of numerals.
Needs (as in needs must go) is the genitive case of a substantive.
Seldom.--The old dative (singular or plural) of the adjective seld.
Whilom.--The dative (singular or plural) of the substantive while.
Little, less, well.--Neuter accusatives of adjectives. Bright, in the sun shines bright, is a word of the same class. The {373} neuter accusative is a common source of adverbs in all tongues.
Athwart.--A neuter accusative, and a word exhibiting the Norse neuter in -t.
s. 433. Darkling.--This is no participle of a verb darkle, but an adverb of derivation, like unwaringun=unawares, Old High German; stillinge=secretly, Middle High German; blindlings=blindly, New High German; darnungo=secretly, Old Saxon; nichtinge=by night, Middle Dutch; blindeling=blindly, New Dutch; baeclinga=backwards, handlunga=hand to hand, Anglo-Saxon; and, finally, blindlins, backlins, darklins, middlins, scantlins, stridelins, stowlins, in Lowland Scotch.--Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 236.
s. 434. "Adverbs like brightly may (laxly speaking) be called adverbs of derivation." Such the assertion made a few paragraphs above. The first circumstance that strikes the reader is, that the termination -ly is common both to adjectives and to adverbs. This termination was once an independent word, viz., leik. Now, as -ly sprung out of the Anglo-Saxon -lice, and as words like early, dearly, &c., were originally arl[^i]ce, deorl[^i]ce, &c., and as arl[^i]ce, deorl[^i]ce, &c., were adjectives, the adverbs in -ly are (strictly speaking) adverbs, not of derivation, but of deflection.
It is highly probable that not only the adverbs of derivation, but that also the absolute adverbs, may eventually be reduced to adverbs of deflection. For now, see Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 249.
* * * * *
{374}
XXXIV. ON CERTAIN ADVERBS OF PLACE
s. 435. It is a common practice for languages to express by different modifications of the same root the three following ideas:--
1. The idea of rest in a place.
2. The idea of motion towards a place.
3. The idea of motion from a place.
This habit gives us three correlative adverbs--one of position, and two of direction.
s. 436. It is also a common practice of language to depart from the original expression of each particular idea, and to interchange the signs by which they are expressed.
s. 437. This may be seen in the following table, illustrative of the forms here, hither, hence, and taken from the Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 199.
Moeso-Gothic thar, thath, thathro, there, thither, thence. h[^e]r, hith, hidr[^o], here, hither, hence. Old High German hu[^a]r, huara, huanana, where, whither, whence. d[^a]r, dara, danana, there, thither, thence. hear, h[^e]ra, hinana, here, hither, hence. Old Saxon huar, huar, huanan, where, whither, whence. thar, thar, thanan, there, thither, thence. h[^e]r, her, henan, here, hither, hence. Anglo-Saxon thar, thider, thonan, there, thither, thence. hvar, hvider, hvonan, where, whither, whence. h[^e]r, hider, henan, here, hither, hence. Old Norse thar, thadhra, thadhan, there, thither, thence. hvar, hvert, hvadhan, where, whither, whence. h[^e]r, hedhra, hedhan, here, hither, hence. Middle High German d[^a], dan,dannen, there, thither, thence. w[^a], war, wannen, where, whither, whence. hie, her, hennen, here, hither, hence. {375} Modern High German da, dar, dannen, there, thither, thence. wo, wohin, wannen, where, whither, whence. hier, her, hinnen, here, hither, hence.
s. 438. These local terminations were commoner in the earlier stages of language than at present. The following are from the Moeso-Gothic:--
Innathr[^o] = from within. [=U]tathr[^o] = from without. Innathr[^o] = from above. F['a]irrathr[^o] = from afar. Allathr[^o] = from all quarters.
Now a reason for the comparative frequency of these forms in Moeso-Gothic lies in the fact of the Gospel of Ulphilas being a translation from the Greek. The Greek forms in [Greek: -then, esothen, exothen, anothen, porrhothen, pantothen], were just the forms to encourage such a formation as that in -thro.--Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 199, &c.
s. 439. The -ce (=es) in hen-ce, when-ce, then-ce, has yet to be satisfactorily explained. The Old English is whenn-es, thenn-es. As far, therefore, as the spelling is concerned, they are in the same predicament with the word once, which is properly on-es, the genitive of one. This statement, however, explains only the peculiarity of their orthography; since it by no means follows, that, because the -s in ones and the -s in whennes, thennes are equally replaced by -ce in orthography, they must equally have the same origin in etymology.
s. 440. Yonder.--In the Moeso-Gothic we have the following forms: j['a]inar, j['a]ina, j['a]inthr[^o]=illic, illuc, illinc. They do not, however, explain the form yon-d-er. It is not clear whether the d=the -d in j[^a]ind, or the th in j['a]inthro.
Anon, as used by Shakspeare, in the sense of presently.--The probable history of this word is as follows: the first syllable contains a root akin to the root yon, signifying distance in place. The second is a shortened form of the Old High German and Middle High German, -nt, a termination expressive, 1, of removal in space; 2, of removal in time; Old High German, enont, ennont; Middle High German, {376} enentlig, jenunt=beyond. The transition from the idea of place to that of time is shown in the Old High German, n[^a]hunt, and the Middle High German, vernent=lately; the first from the root nigh, the latter from the root far.--See Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 215.
* * * * *
{377}
XXXV. ON WHEN, THEN, AND THAN
s. 441. The Anglo-Saxon adverbs are whenne and thenne=when, then.
The masculine accusative cases of the relative and demonstrative pronoun are hwaene (hwone) and thaene (thone).
Notwithstanding the difference, the first form is a variety of the second; so that the adverbs when and then are pronominal in origin.
As to the word than, the conjunction of comparison, it is a variety of then; the notions of order, sequence, and comparison being allied.
This is good: then (or next in order) that is good, is an expression sufficiently similar to this is better than that to have given rise to it.
* * * * *
{378}
XXXVI. PREPOSITIONS AND CONJUNCTIONS
s. 442. Prepositions.--Prepositions, as such, are wholly unsusceptible of inflection. Other parts of speech, in a state of inflection, may be used with a prepositional sense. This, however, is not an inflection of prepositions.
No word is ever made a preposition by the addition of a derivational[59] element. If it were not for this, the practical classification of the prepositions, in respect to their form, would coincide with that of the adverbs. As it is, there are only the prepositions of deflection, and the absolute prepositions. On another principle of division there are the simple prepositions (in, on, &c.), and the complex prepositions (upon, roundabout, across).
The prepositions of deflection, when simple, originate chiefly in adverbs, as up, down, within, without, unless, indeed, we change the assertion, and say that the words in point (and the others like them) are adverbs originating in prepositions. The absence of characteristic terminations renders these decisions difficult.
The prepositions of deflection, when complex, originate chiefly in nouns, accompanied by an absolute preposition; as instead of of substantival, between of adjectival origin.
The absolute prepositions, in the English language, are in, on, of, at, up, by, to, for, from, till, with, through.
s. 443. Conjunctions.--Conjunctions, like prepositions, are wholly unsusceptible of inflection. Like prepositions they {379} are never made by means of a derivational element. Like prepositions they are either simple (as and, if), or complex (as also, nevertheless).
The conjunctions of deflection originate chiefly in imperative moods (as all save one, all except one); participles used like the ablative absolute in Latin (as all saving one, all excepting one); adverbs (as so); prepositions (as for); and relative neuters (as that).
The absolute conjunctions in the English language are and, or, but, if.
s. 444. Yes, no.--Although not may be reduced to an adverb, nor to a conjunction, and none to a noun, these two words (the direct affirmative, and the direct negative) are referable to none of the current parts of speech. Accurate grammar places them in a class by themselves.
s. 445. Particles.--The word particle is a collective term for all those parts of speech that are naturally unsusceptible of inflection; comprising, 1, interjections; 2, direct affirmatives; 3, direct negatives; 4, absolute conjunctions; 5, absolute prepositions; 6, adverbs unsusceptible of degrees of comparison; 7, inseparable prefixes.
* * * * *
{380}