Produced by Colin Bell, Keith Edkins and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)
Transcriber's note: A few typographical errors have been corrected: they
are listed at the end of the text.
* * * * *
In this e-text a-breve is represented by [)a], a-macron by [=a],
y-dotted-over by [.y], s-acute by ['s] etc. a-ring is [oa], a-circumflex is
[^a] and a-grave [`a]. Aesc, eth and thorn have been expanded to ae, dh and
th.
* * * * *
Page numbers enclosed by curly braces (example: {25}) have been
incorporated to facilitate the use of the Table of Contents.
* * * * *
THE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
BY
ROBERT GORDON LATHAM, M.D., F.R.S.,
LATE FELLOW OF KING'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE; FELLOW OF THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF
PHYSICIANS, LONDON; MEMBER OF THE ETHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY,
NEW YORK; LATE PROFESSOR OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
AND LITERATURE, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LONDON.
THIRD EDITION,
REVISED AND GREATLY ENLARGED.
LONDON:
TAYLOR, WALTON, AND MABERLY,
UPPER GOWER STREET, AND IVY LANE, PATERNOSTER ROW.
1850.
* * * * *
LONDON:
Printed by SAMUEL BENTLEY & Co.,
Bangor House, Shoe Lane.
* * * * *
TO
THE REV. WILLIAM BUTCHER, M.A.,
OF
ROPSLEY, LINCOLNSHIRE,
IN ADMIRATION OF HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS A LINGUIST,
AND AS A TESTIMONY OF PRIVATE REGARD,
THE FOLLOWING PAGES ARE INSCRIBED,
BY HIS FRIEND,
THE AUTHOR.
LONDON,
_Nov. 4, 1841_.
* * * * *
{v}
PREFACE
TO THE
SECOND EDITION.
* * * * *
The first edition of the present work was laid before the public, with the
intention of representing in a form as systematic as the extent of the
subject would allow, those views concerning the structure and relations of
the English language, which amongst such scholars as had studied them with
the proper means and opportunities, were then generally received; and
which, so being received, might take their stand as established and
recognized facts. With the results of modern criticism, as applied to his
native tongue, it was conceived that an educated Englishman should be
familiar. To this extent the special details of the language were
exhibited; and to this extent the work was strictly a Grammar of the
English Language.
But besides this, it was well known that the current grammarians, and the
critical philologists, had long ceased to write alike upon the English, or
{vi} indeed upon any other, language. For this reason the sphere of the
work became enlarged; so that, on many occasions, general principles had to
be enounced, fresh terms to be defined, and old classifications to be
remodelled. This introduced extraneous elements of criticism, and points of
discussion which, in a more advanced stage of English philology, would have
been superfluous. It also introduced elements which had a tendency to
displace the account of some of the more special and proper details of the
language. There was not room for the exposition of general principles, for
the introduction of the necessary amount of preliminary considerations, and
for the _minutiae_ of an extreme analysis. Nor is there room for all this
at present. A work that should, at one and the same time, prove its
principles, instead of assuming them, supply the full and necessary
preliminaries in the way of logic, phonetics, and ethnology, and, besides
this, give a history of every variety in the form of every word, although,
perhaps, a work that one man might write, would be a full and perfect
_Thesaurus_ of the English Language, and, would probably extend to many
volumes. For, in the English language, there are many first principles to
be established, and much historical knowledge to be applied. Besides which,
the particular points both of etymology and syntax are far more numerous
than is imagined. Scanty as is the amount of declension and conjugation in
current use, there are to be found in every department of our grammars,
{vii} numerous isolated words which exhibit the fragments of a fuller
inflection, and of a more highly developed etymology. This is well-known to
every scholar who has not only viewed our language as a derivative of the
Anglo-Saxon, and observed that there are similar relations between many
other languages (_e. g._ the Italian and Latin, the German and
Moeso-Gothic, &c.), but who has, also, generalized the phenomena of such
forms of relationship and derivation, and enabled himself to see in the
most uninflected languages of the nineteenth century, the fragments of a
fuller and more systematic inflection, altered by time, but altered in a
uniform and a general manner.
The point, however, upon which, in the prefaces both of the first edition
of the present work and of his English Grammar, the writer has most
urgently insisted is the _disciplinal_ character of grammatical studies in
general, combined with the fact, that the grammatical study of one's own
language is almost _exclusively_ disciplinal. It is undoubtedly true, that
in schools something that is called English Grammar is taught: and it is
taught pretty generally. It is taught so generally that, I believe, here
are only two classes of English boys and girls who escape it--those who are
taught nothing at all in any school whatever, and those who are sent so
early to the great classical schools (where nothing is taught but Latin and
Greek), as to escape altogether the English part of their scholastic
education. But {viii} what is it that is thus generally taught? not the
familiar practice of speaking English--that has been already attained by
the simple fact of the pupil having been born on English soil, and of
English parents. Not the scientific theory of the language--that is an
impossibility with the existing text-books. Neither, then, of these matters
is taught. Nevertheless labour is expended, and time is consumed. What is
taught? Something undoubtedly. The facts, that language is more or less
regular (_i. e._ capable of having its structure exhibited by rules); that
there is such a thing as grammar; and that certain expressions should be
avoided, are all matters worth knowing. And they are all taught even by the
worst method of teaching. But are these the proper objects of _systematic_
teaching? Is the importance of their acquisition equivalent to the time,
the trouble, and the displacement of more valuable subjects, which are
involved in their explanation? I think not. Gross vulgarity of language is
a fault to be prevented; but the proper prevention is to be got from
habit--not rules. The proprieties of the English language are to be
learned, like the proprieties of English manners, by conversation and
intercourse; and the proper school for both, is the best society in which
the learner is placed. If this be good, systematic teaching is superfluous;
if bad, insufficient. There _are_ undoubted points where a young person may
doubt as to the grammatical propriety of a certain expression. In this case
let him ask some one older, and more instructed. Grammar, {ix} as an _art_,
is, undoubtedly, _the art of speaking and writing correctly_--but then, as
an _art_, it is only required for _foreign_ languages. For our _own_ we
have the necessary practice and familiarity.
The claim of English grammar to form part and parcel of an English
education stands or falls with the value of the philological and historical
knowledge to which grammatical studies may serve as an introduction, and
with the value of scientific grammar as a _disciplinal_ study. I have no
fear of being supposed to undervalue its importance in this respect. Indeed
in assuming that it is very great, I also assume that wherever grammar is
studied as grammar, the language which the grammar so studied should
represent, must be the mother-tongue of the student; _whatever that
mother-tongue may be_--English for Englishmen, Welsh for Welshmen, French
for Frenchmen, German for Germans, &c. This study is the study of a theory;
and for this reason it should be complicated as little as possible by
points of practice. For this reason a man's mother-tongue is the best
medium for the elements of scientific philology, simply because it is the
one which he knows best in practice.
Now if, over and above the remarks upon the English language, and the
languages allied to it, there occur in the present volume, episodical
discussions of points connected with other languages, especially the Latin
and Greek, it is because a greater portion of the current ideas on
philological subjects {x} is taken from those languages than from our own.
Besides which, a second question still stands over. There is still the
question as to the relative disciplinal merits of the different
_non_-vernacular languages of the world. What is the next best vehicle for
philological philosophy to our mother-tongue, whatever that mother-tongue
maybe? Each Athenian who fought at Salamis considered his own contributions
to that great naval victory the greatest; and he considered them so because
they were _his own_. So it is with the language which we speak, and use,
and have learned as our own. Yet each same Athenian awarded the second
place of honour to Themistocles. The great classical languages of Greece
and Rome are in the position of Themistocles. They are the best when the
question of ourselves and our possessions is excluded. They are the best in
the eyes of an indifferent umpire. More than this; if we take into account
the studies of the learned world, they are second only to the particular
mother-tongue of the particular student, in the way of practical
familiarity. Without either affirming or denying that, on the simple scores
of etymological regularity, etymological variety, and syntactic logic, the
Sanskrit may be their equal, it must still be admitted that this last-named
language has no claims to a high value as a practical philological
discipline upon the grounds of its universality as a point of education;
nor will it have. Older than the Greek, it may (or may not) be; more
multiform than the Latin, it may (or may not) be: but equally rich in the
attractions {xi} of an unsurpassed literature, and equally influential as a
standard of imitation, it neither has been nor can be. We may admit all
that is stated by those who admire its epics, or elucidate its philosophy;
we may admire all this and much more besides, but we shall still miss the
great elements of oratory and history, that connect the ancient languages
of Greece and Italy with the thoughts, and feelings, and admiration of
recent Europe.
The same sort of reasoning applies to the Semitic languages. One element
they have, in their grammatical representation, which gives them a value in
philological philosophy, in the abstract, above all other languages--the
_generality_ of the expression of their structure. This is _symbolic_, and
its advantage is that it exhibits the naturally universal phenomena of
their construction in a universal language. Yet neither this nor their
historical value raises them to the level of the classical languages.
Now, what has just been written has been written with a view towards a
special inference, and as the preliminary to a practical deduction; and it
would not have been written but for some such ulterior application. If
these languages have so high a disciplinal value, how necessary it is that
the expression of their philological phenomena should be accurate,
scientific, and representative of their true growth and form? How essential
that their grammars should exhibit nothing that may hereafter be unlearned?
_Pace grammaticorum dixerim_, this is not the case. Bad {xii} as is Lindley
Murray in English, Busby and Lilly are worse in Greek and Latin. This is
the comparison of the men on the low rounds of the ladder. What do we find
as we ascend? Is the grammatical science of even men like Mathiae and Zump
_much_ above that of Wallis? Does Buttmann's Greek give so little to be
unlearned as Grimm's German? By any one who has gone far in comparative
philology, the answer will be given in the negative.
This is not written in the spirit of a destructive criticism. If an opinion
as to the fact is stated without reserve, it is accompanied by an
explanation, and (partially, perhaps) by a justification. It is the
business of a Greek and Latin grammarian to teach Greek and Latin _cito,
tute, ac jucunde_,--_cito_, that is, between the years of twelve and
twenty-four; _tute_, that is, in a way that quantities may be read truly,
and hard passages translated accurately; _jucunde_, that is, as the taste
and memory of the pupil may determine. With this view the grammar must be
_artificial_. Granted. But then it should profess to be so. It should
profess to address the memory only, not the understanding. Above all it
should prefer to leave a point untaught, than to teach it in a way that
must be unlearned.
In 1840, so little had been done by Englishmen for the English language,
that in acknowledging my great obligations to foreign scholars, I was only
able to speak to what _might be done_ by my own countrymen. Since then,
however, there has been a good {xiii} beginning of what is likely to be
done well. My references to the works of Messrs. Kemble, Garnet, and Guest,
show that my authorities are _now_ as much English as German. And this is
likely to be the case. The details of the syntax, the illustrations drawn
from our provincial dialects, the minute history of individual words, and
the whole system of articulate sounds can, for the English, only be done
safely by an Englishman: or, to speak more generally, can, for any
language, only be dealt with properly by the grammarian whose mother-tongue
is that language. The _Deutsche Grammatik_ of Grimm is the work not of an
age nor of a century, but, like the great history of the Athenian, a
[Greek: ktema eis aei]. It is the magazine from whence all draw their facts
and illustrations. Yet it is only the proper German portion that pretends
to be exhaustive. The Dutch and Scandinavians have each improved the
exhibition of their own respective languages. Monument as is the _Deutsche
Grammatik_ of learning, industry, comprehensiveness, and arrangement, it is
not a book that should be read to the exclusion of others: nor must it be
considered to exhibit the grammar of the Gothic languages, in a form
unsusceptible of improvement. Like all great works, it is more easily
improved than imitated. One is almost unwilling to recur to the old
comparison between Aristotle, who absorbed the labour of his predecessors,
and the Eastern sultans, who kill-off their younger brothers. But such is
the case with Grimm and his fore-runners in philology. Germany, that, in
{xiv} respect to the Reformation, is content to be told that Erasmus laid
the egg which Luther hatched, must also acknowledge that accurate and
systematic scholars of other countries prepared the way for the _Deutsche
Grammatik_,--Ten Kate in Holland; Dowbrowsky, a Slavonian; and Rask, a
Dane.
Nor are there wanting older works in English that have a value in Gothic
philology. I should be sorry to speak as if, beyond the writers of what may
be called the modern school of philology, there was nothing for the English
grammarian both to read and study. The fragments of Ben Jonson's English
Grammar are worth the entireties of many later writers. The work of Wallis
is eminently logical and precise. The voice of a mere ruler of rules is a
sound to flee from; but the voice of a truly powerful understanding is a
thing to be heard on all matters. It is this which gives to Cobbett and
Priestley, to Horne Tooke as a subtle etymologist, and to Johnson as a
practical lexicographer, a value in literary history, which they never can
have in grammar. It converts unwholesome doctrines into a fertile
discipline of thought.
The method of the present work is mixed. It is partly historical, and
partly logical. The historical portions exhibit the way in which words and
inflections _have been_ used; the logical, the way in which they _ought to
be_ used. Now I cannot conceal from either my readers or myself the fact
that philological criticism at the present moment is of an essentially {xv}
historical character. It has been by working the historical method that all
the great results both in general and special scholarship have been arrived
at; and it is on historical investigation that the whole _induction_ of
modern philology rests. All beyond is _[`a] priori_ argument; and,
according to many, _[`a] priori_ argument out of place. Now, this gives to
the questions in philology, to questions concerning the phenomena of
concord, government, &c. a subordinate character. It does so, however,
improperly. Logic is in language what it is in reasoning,--a rule and
standard. But in its application to reasoning and to language there is this
difference. Whilst illogical reasoning, and illogical grammar are equally
phenomena of the human mind, even as physical disease is a phenomenon of
the human body, the illogical grammar can rectify itself by its mere
continuance, propagation, and repetition. In this respect the phenomena of
language stand apart from the other phenomena of either mind or organized
matter. No amount of false argument can make a fallacy other than a
fallacy. No amount of frequency can make physical disease other than a
predisposing cause to physical disorganization. The argument that halts in
its logic, is not on a _par_ with the argument that is sound. Such also is
the case with any bodily organ. No prevalence of sickness can ever evolve
health. Language, however, as long as it preserves the same amount of
intelligibility is always language. Provided it serve as a medium, it does
its proper work; {xvi} and as long as it does this, it is, as far as its
application is concerned, faultless. Now there is a limit in logical
regularity which language is perpetually overstepping; just as there is a
logical limit which the reasoning of common life is perpetually
overstepping, and just as there is a physiological limit which the average
health of men and women may depart from. This limit is investigated by the
historical method; which shows the amount of latitude in which language may
indulge and yet maintain its great essential of intelligibility. Nay, more,
it can show that it sometimes transgresses the limit in so remarkable a
manner, as to induce writers to talk about the _corruption of a language_,
or _the pathology of a language_, with the application of many similar
metaphors. Yet it is very doubtful whether all languages, in all their
stages, are not equally intelligible, and, consequently, equally what they
ought to be, viz., mediums of intercourse between man and man; whilst, in
respect to their growth, it is almost certain that so far from exhibiting
signs of dissolution, they are, on the contrary, like the Tithonus of
mythology, the Strulbrugs of Laputa, or, lastly, such monsters as
Frankenstein, very liable to the causes of death, but utterly unable to
die. Hence, in language, _whatever is, is right_; a fact which, taken by
itself, gives great value to the historical method of inquiry, and leaves
little to the _[`a] priori_ considerations of logic.
But, on the other hand, there is a limit in logical regularity, which
language _never_ oversteps: and as {xvii} long as this is the case, the
study of the logical standard of what language is in its normal form must
go hand in hand with the study of the processes that deflect it. The
investigation of the irregularities of language--and be it remembered that
almost all change implies original irregularity--is analogous to the
investigation of fallacies in logic. It is the comparison between the rule
and the practice, with this difference, that in language the practice can
change the rule, which in logic is impossible. I am sure that these remarks
are necessary in order to anticipate objections that may be raised against
certain statements laid down in the syntax. I often write as if I took no
account of the historical evidence, in respect to particular uses of
particular words. I do so, not because I undervalue that department of
philology, but because it is out of place. To show that one or more
writers, generally correct, have used a particular expression is to show
that they speak, in a few instances, as the vulgar speak in many. To show
that the vulgar use one expression for another is to show that two ideas
are sufficiently allied to be expressed in the same manner: in other words,
the historical fact is accompanied by a logical explanation; and the
historical deviation is measured by a logical standard.
I am not desirous of sacrificing a truth to an antithesis, but so certain
is language to change from logical accuracy to logical licence, and, at the
same time, so certain is language, when so changed, to be {xviii} just as
intelligible as before, that I venture upon asserting that, not only
_whatever is, is right_, but also, that in many cases, _whatever was, was
wrong_. There is an antagonism, between logic and practice; and the
phenomena on both sides must be studied.
* * * * *
{xix}
CONTENTS.
PART I.
GENERAL ETHNOLOGICAL RELATIONS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
CHAPTER I.
GERMANIC ORIGIN OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE--DATE.
SECTION PAGE
1. English not originally British 1
2. Germanic in origin 2
3-10. Accredited details of the different immigrations from Germany
into Britain 2-4
10-12. Accredited relations of the Jutes, Angles, and Saxons to each
other as Germans 4
13. Criticism of evidence 5
Extract from Mr. Kemble 6
14. Inference 9
CHAPTER II.
GERMANIC ORIGIN OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE--THE IMMIGRANT TRIBES
AND THEIR RELATION TO EACH OTHER.
15-20. The Jute immigration doubtful 10-12
22. Difficulties in identifying the Saxons 13
23. Difficulties in identifying the Angles 13
25-29. Populations with the greatest _[`a] priori_ likelihood of having
immigrated 14, 15
26. Menapians 15
27. Batavians 15
28. Frisians 15
29. Chauci 15
30. Inference 16
{xx}
31-34. Saxons and Nordalbingians 16, 17
35-50. Populations, whereof the continental relation help us in fixing
the original country of the Angles and Saxons 17-21
36. Germans of the Middle Rhine 17
Franks 18
Salians 18
Chamavi 18
37. Thuringians 18
38. Catti 18
39. Geographical conditions of the Saxon Area 18
40. Its _Eastern_ limit 19
41-50. Slavonian frontier 20, 21
41. " Polabi 20
42. " Wagrians 20
43. " Obotriti 20
44. " Lini 20
45. " Warnabi 21
46. " Morizani 21
47. " Doxani 21
48. " Hevelli 21
49. " Slavonians of Altmark 21
50. " Sorabians 21
51. Saxon area 21
CHAPTER III.
OF THE DIALECTS OF THE SAXON AREA AND OF THE SO-CALLED OLD
SAXON.
52, 53. Extent and frontier 23
54-62. Anglo-Saxon and Old Saxon 23-25
63. Old-Saxon _data_ 25
64. Specimen 26
CHAPTER IV.
AFFINITIES OF THE ENGLISH WITH THE LANGUAGES OF GERMANY AND
SCANDINAVIA.
65. _General_ affinities of the English language 28
67. The term _Gothic_ 28
69. _Scandinavian_ branch 28
70. _Teutonic_ branch 31
{xxi}
71. Moeso-Gothic 31
73. Origin of the Moeso-Goths 32
76. Name not Germanic 33
77. Old High German 35
78. Low Germanic division 36
79. Frisian 36
81. Old Frisian 37
82. Platt-Deutsch 38
83. Anglo-Saxon and Icelandic compound 38
84. Scandinavian article 40
88. Scandinavian verb 44
91. Declension in _-n_ 45
92. Difference between languages of the same division 46
93. Weak and strong nouns 46
Moeso-Gothic inflections 47
94. Old Frisian and Anglo-Saxon 50
98. The term _German_ 56
99. The term _Dutch_ 57
100. The term _Teutonic_ 58
101. The term _Anglo-Saxon_ 59
102. _Icelandic_, Old Norse 59
CHAPTER V.
ANALYSIS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE--GERMANIC ELEMENTS.
106. The _Angles_ 62
109. Extract from Tacitus 63
" Ptolemy 63
110. Extracts connecting them with the inhabitants of the Cimbric
Chersonesus 64
111. The district called Angle 65
113. Inferences and remarks 65
114. What were the _Langobardi_ with whom the Angles were connected
by Tacitus? 66
115. What were the Suevi, &c. 66
116. What were the Werini, &c. 67
117. What were the Thuringians, &c. 67
121. Difficulties respecting the Angles 68
123-128. Patronymic forms, and the criticism based on them 68-72
129-131. Probably German immigrants _not_ Anglo-Saxon 72, 73
{xxii}
CHAPTER VI.
THE CELTIC STOCK OF LANGUAGES, AND THEIR RELATIONS TO THE
ENGLISH.
132. Cambrian Celtic 74
133. Gaelic Celtic 77
136. Structure of Celtic tongues 79-83
138. The Celtic of Gaul 84
139. The Pictish 84
CHAPTER VII.
THE ANGLO-NORMAN AND THE LANGUAGES OF THE CLASSICAL STOCK.
140. The Classical languages 86
141. Extension of the Roman language 86
142. The divisions 87
Specimen of the Romanese 88
Specimen of the Wallachian 88
143. French dialects 89
Oath of Ludwig 90
144. Norman-French 91
CHAPTER VIII.
THE POSITION OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE AS INDO-EUROPEAN.
147. The term _Indo-European_ 94
148. Is the Celtic Indo-European? 95
PART II.
HISTORY AND ANALYSIS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
CHAPTER I.
HISTORICAL AND LOGICAL ELEMENTS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
149. Celtic elements 97
150. Latin of the First Period 98
151. Anglo-Saxon 98
152. Danish or Norse 98
153. Roman of the Second Period 100
{xxiii}
154. Anglo-Norman 101
155. Indirect Scandinavian 101
156. Latin of the Third Period 101
157. Greek elements 102
158. Classical elements 102
159. Latin words 103
160. Greek elements 104
161, 162. Miscellaneous elements 105
163, 164. Direct and ultimate origin of words 106, 107
165. Distinction 107
166-168. Words of foreign simulating a vernacular origin 107-109
169-171. Hybridism 109, 110
172. Incompletion of radical 110
173. Historical and logical analysis 111
CHAPTER II.
THE RELATION OF THE ENGLISH TO THE ANGLO-SAXON AND THE STAGES
OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
174. Ancient and modern languages 112
175. English and Anglo-Saxon compared 113
176. Semi-Saxon stage 117
177-179. Old English stage 119, 122
180. Middle English 122
181. Present tendencies of the English 123
182. Speculative question 123
CHAPTER III.
THE LOWLAND SCOTCH.
183-188. Lowland Scotch 124-127
189. Extracts 127
190. Points of difference with the English 130
CHAPTER IV.
ON CERTAIN UNDETERMINED AND FICTITIOUS LANGUAGES OF GREAT
BRITAIN.
191, 192. The Belgae 132-135
193. Caledonians, Iberians 135
194. Supposed affinities of the Irish 135
Extract from Plautus 136
195. Hypothesis of a Finnic race 139
{xxiv}
PART III.
SOUNDS, LETTERS, PRONUNCIATION, AND SPELLING.
CHAPTER I.
GENERAL NATURE OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS.
196. Preliminary remarks 141
197. Vowels and consonants 143
198. Divisions of articulate sounds 143
199. Explanation of terms 143
_Sharp_ and _flat_ 143
_Continuous_ and _explosive_ 144
200. General statements 144
201. _H_ no articulation 144
CHAPTER II.
SYSTEM OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS.
202. System of vowels 145
_['e]_ ferm['e], ['o] _chiuso_, _ue_ German
145
203. System of mutes 145
Lenes and aspirates 146
204. Affinities of the liquids 147
205. Diphthongs 147
206. Compound sibilants 148
207. _Ng_ 148
208-210. Further explanation of terms 148-150
211. System of vowels 150
212. System of mutes 150
213. Varieties 150
214. Connection in phonetics 151
CHAPTER III.
ON CERTAIN COMBINATIONS OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS.
215. Unpronounceable combinations 152
216. Unstable combinations 153
217. Effect of _y_ 153
218, 219. Evolution of new sounds 153, 154
220. Value of a sufficient system of sounds 154
{xxv}
221. Double consonants rare 154
222. Reduplications of consonants rare 155
223. True aspirates rare 155
CHAPTER IV.
EUPHONY; THE PERMUTATION AND TRANSITION OF LETTERS.
224. Euphonic change exhibited 157
225. The _rationale_ of it 157
226. The combinations _-mt_, _-nt_ 158
227. The combination _-pth_ 158
228. Accommodation of vowels 158
229. Permutation of letters 159
230. Transition of letters 160
CHAPTER V.
ON THE FORMATION OF SYLLABLES.
231. Distribution of consonants between two syllables 161
CHAPTER VI.
ON QUANTITY.
232. _Long_ and _short_ 164
233. How far coincident with _independent_ and _dependent_ 164
234. Length of vowels and length of syllables 165
CHAPTER VII.
ON ACCENT.
235. Accent 167
236. How far accent always on the root 168
237. Verbal accent and logical accent 168
238. Effect of accent on orthography 169
239. Accent and quantity _not_ the same 170
CHAPTER VIII.
THE PRINCIPLES OF ORTHOEPY.
240. Meaning of the word _orthoepy_ 172
241. Classification of errors in pronunciation 172
242-244. Causes of erroneous enunciation 172-175
{xxvi}
245. Appreciation of standards of orthoepy 175
246. Principles of critical orthoepy 176
CHAPTER IX.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF ORTHOGRAPHY.
247. Province of orthography 178
248. Imperfections of alphabets 178
249. Applications of alphabets 180
250. Changes of sound, and original false spelling 181
251. Theory of a perfect alphabet 181
252. Sounds and letters in English 182
253. Certain conventional modes of spelling 187
254. The inconvenience of them 189
255. Criticism upon the details of the English orthography 189-200
CHAPTER X.
HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE ENGLISH ALPHABET.
256. Bearings of the question 200
257. Phoenician Period 200
258, 259. Greek Period 201-203
260-262. Latin Period 203-205
263. The Moeso-Gothic alphabet 205
264. The Anglo-Saxon alphabet 205
265. The Anglo-Norman Period 207
266. Extract from the Ormulum 208
267. The _Runes_ 209
268. The order of the alphabet 210
269. Parallel and equivalent orthographies 213
PART IV.
ETYMOLOGY.
CHAPTER I.
ON THE PROVINCE OF ETYMOLOGY.
270. Meaning of the term etymology 214
{xxvii}
CHAPTER II.
ON GENDER.
271. Latin genders 217
272. Words like _he-goat_ 217
273. Words like _genitrix_ 217
274. Words like _domina_ 218
275. Sex 219
276. True Genders in English 219
277. Neuters in _-t_ 220
278. Personification 220
279. True and apparent genders 221
CHAPTER III.
THE NUMBERS.
280, 281. Dual number 225
282-284. Plural in _-s_ 226-230
285. The form in _child-r-en_ 230
286. The form in _-en_ 232
287. _Men_, _feet_, &c. 232
288. _Brethren_, &c. 232
CHAPTER IV.
ON THE CASES.
289, 290. Meaning of word _case_ 234
291. Cases in English 237
292, 293. Determination of cases 239
294, 295. Analysis of cases 241
296. Case in _-s_ 241
CHAPTER V.
THE PERSONAL PRONOUNS.
297. True personal pronoun 243
298. _We_ and _me_ 244
CHAPTER VI.
ON THE TRUE REFLECTIVE PRONOUN IN THE GOTHIC LANGUAGES AND ON
ITS ABSENCE IN THE ENGLISH.
299. The Latin _se_, _sui_ 247
{xxviii}
CHAPTER VII.
THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS, ETC.
300. _He_, _she_, _it_, _this_, _that_, _the_ 249
301. _These_ 251
302. _Those_ 253
CHAPTER VIII.
THE RELATIVE, INTERROGATIVE, AND CERTAIN OTHER PRONOUNS.
303. _Who_, _what_, &c. 255
304. Indo-European forms 255
305. Miscellaneous observations 256
CHAPTER IX.
ON CERTAIN FORMS IN -ER.
306, 307. _Eith-er_, _ov-er_, _und-er_, _bett-er_ 260, 261
308. Illustration from the Laplandic 261
309. Idea of alternative 262
CHAPTER X.
THE COMPARATIVE DEGREE.
310. Forms in _-tara_ and _-[^i]yas_ 263
311. Change from _-s_ to _-r_ 263
312. Moeso-Gothic comparative 264
313. Comparison of adverbs 264
314. _Elder_ 265
315. _Rather_ 265
316. Excess of expression 266
317. _Better_, &c. 266
318. Sequence in logic 266
319-325. _Worse_, &c. 267-270
CHAPTER XI.
ON THE SUPERLATIVE DEGREE.
326. Different modes of expression 271
327. The termination _-st_ 272
{xxix}
CHAPTER XII.
THE CARDINAL NUMBERS.
328, 329. Their ethnological value 273
Variations in form 274
10+2 and 10x2 275
330. Limits to the inflection of the numeral 276
CHAPTER XIII.
ON THE ORDINAL NUMBERS.
331. _First_ 277
332. _Second_ 277
333. _Third_, _fourth_, &c. 278
334, 335. Ordinal and superlative forms 278-280
CHAPTER XIV.
THE ARTICLES.
336. _A_, _the_, _no_ 281
CHAPTER XV.
DIMINUTIVES, AUGMENTATIVES, AND PATRONYMICS.
337, 338. Diminutives 283
339. Augmentatives 285
340. Patronymics 286
CHAPTER XVI.
GENTILE FORMS.
341. _Wales_ 288
CHAPTER XVII.
ON THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE NOUN AND VERB, AND ON THE
INFLECTION OF THE INFINITIVE MOOD.
342-344. Substantival character of verbs 289
345, 346. Declension of the infinitive 290
CHAPTER XVIII.
ON DERIVED VERBS.
347. _Rise_, _raise_, &c. 292
{xxx}
CHAPTER XIX.
ON THE PERSONS.
348-351. Persons in English 294-298
352. Person in _-t_, _-art_, &c. 298
353. Forms like _spakest_, _sungest_, &c. 299
354. Plurals in _-s_ 299
CHAPTER XX.
ON THE NUMBERS OF VERBS.
355. Personal signs of numbers 300
_Run_, _ran_ 301
CHAPTER XXI.
ON MOODS.
356. The infinitive mood 302
357. The imperative mood 302
358. The subjunctive mood 302
CHAPTER XXII.
OF TENSES IN GENERAL.
359. General nature of tenses 303
360. Latin preterites 304
361. Moeso-Gothic perfects 304
Reduplication 305
362. Strong and weak verbs 305
CHAPTER XXIII.
THE STRONG TENSES.
363. _Sang_, _sung_ 307
364-376. Classification of strong verbs 308-316
CHAPTER XXIV.
THE WEAK TENSES.
377. The weak inflection 317
378. First division 318
379. Second division 318
{xxxi}
380. Third division 319
381. Preterites in _-ed_ and _-t_ 319
382. Preterites like _made_, _had_ 321-327
_Would_, _should_ 322
_Aught_ 322
_Durst_ 322
_Must_ 323
_Wist_ 324
_Do_ 325
_Mind_ 325
_Yode_ 327
CHAPTER XXV.
ON CONJUGATIONS.
383. So-called irregularities 328
384. Principles of criticism 329
Coincidence of form 329
Coincidence of distribution 329
Coincidence of order 329
385. Strong verbs once weak 332
386. Division of verbs into _strong_ and _weak_ natural 333
387. Obsolete forms 334
388. Double forms 334
CHAPTER XXVI.
DEFECTIVENESS AND IRREGULARITY.
389. Difference between defectiveness and irregularity 335
Vital and obsolete processes 336
Processes of necessity 337
Ordinary processes 338
Positive processes 338
Processes of confusion 339
390. _Could_ 339
391. _Quoth_ 340
CHAPTER XXVII.
THE IMPERSONAL VERBS.
392-394. _Meseems_, _methinks_, _me listeth_ 342
{xxxii}
CHAPTER XXVIII.
THE VERB SUBSTANTIVE.
395. The verb substantive defective 344
396. _Was_ 344
397. _Be_ 344
398, 399. Future power of _be_ 345
400. _Am_ 346
_Worth_ 347
CHAPTER XXIX.
THE PRESENT PARTICIPLE.
401. The form in _-ing_ 348
402. Substantival power of participle 349
403. Taylor's theory 349
CHAPTER XXX.
THE PAST PARTICIPLE.
404-406. Similarity to the preterite 351
407. _Forlorn_, _frore_ 352
408. The form in _-ed_, _-d_, or _-t_ 352
409. The _y-_ in _y-cleped_, &c. 353
CHAPTER XXXI.
ON COMPOSITION.
410-414. Definition of composition 355-357
415-417. Parity of accent 358
418. Obscure compounds 361
419. Exceptions 362
420. _Peacock_, _peahen_, &c. 364
421. Third element in compound words 365
422. Improper compounds 365
423. Decomposites 365
424. Combinations 366
CHAPTER XXXII.
ON DERIVATION AND INFLECTION.
425. Derivation 367
426. Classification of derived words 368
427. Words like _['a]bsent_ and _abs['e]nt_, &c.
369
{xxxiii}
428. Words like _churl_, _tail_, &c. 370
429. Forms like _tip_ and _top_, &c. 370
430. Obscure derivatives 370
CHAPTER XXXIII.
ADVERBS.
431. Classification of adverbs 371
432. Adverbs of deflection 372
433. Words like _darkling_ 373
434. Words like _brightly_ 374
CHAPTER XXXIV.
ON CERTAIN ADVERBS OF PLACE.
435-439. _Here_, _hither_, _hence_ 374
440. _Yonder_ 375
_Anon_ 375
CHAPTER XXXV.
ON WHEN, THEN, AND THAN.
441. Origin of the words 377
CHAPTER XXXVI.
ON PREPOSITIONS, ETC.
442. Prepositions 378
443. Conjunctions 378
444. _Yes_ and _no_ 379
445. Particles 379
CHAPTER XXXVII.
ON THE GRAMMATICAL POSITION OF THE WORDS _MINE_ AND _THINE_.
446. Peculiarities of inflection of pronouns 380
447. Powers of the genitive case 381
448. Ideas of possession and partition 382
449. Adjectival expressions 382
450. Evolution of cases 383
451. Idea of possession 383
452. Idea of partition 383
{xxxiv}
453. _A posteriori_ argument 384
454-458. Analogy of _mei_ and [Greek: emou] 384
459. Etymological evidence 386
460. Syntactic evidence 387
461. Value of the evidence of certain constructions 387
462, 463. Double adjectival form 388
CHAPTER XXXVIII.
ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE WEAK PRAETERITE.
464. Forms like _salb-[^o]d[^e]dum_ 390
465, 466. The Slavonic praeterite 391
PART V.
SYNTAX.
CHAPTER I.
ON SYNTAX IN GENERAL.
467. The term _syntax_ 392
468. What is _not_ syntax 392
469. What _is_ syntax 394
470. Pure syntax 395
471, 472. Mixed syntax 395
473. Figures of speech 395
474. Personification 395
475. Ellipsis 395
476. Pleonasm 395
477. Zeugma 397
478. [Greek: Pros to semainomenon] 397
479. Apposition 398
480. Collective nouns 398
481, 482. Complex forms 399
483. Convertibility 399
484. Etymological convertibility 400
485. Syntactic convertibility 400
486. Adjectives used as substantives 400
{xxxv}
487. Uninflected parts of speech used as such 400
488. Convertibility common in English 401
CHAPTER II.
SYNTAX OF SUBSTANTIVES.
489. Convertibility 402
490. Ellipsis 403
491. Proper names 403
CHAPTER III.
SYNTAX OF ADJECTIVES.
492. Pleonasm 404
493. Collocation 404
494. Government 404
495. _More fruitful_, &c. 405
496. _The better of the two_ 405
497. Syntax of adjectives simple 406
CHAPTER IV.
SYNTAX OF PRONOUNS.
498, 499. Syntax of pronouns important 407
500, 501. Pleonasm 407
CHAPTER V.
THE TRUE PERSONAL PRONOUNS.
502. _Pronomen reverentiae_ 409
503. _You_ and _ye_ 409
504. _Dativus ethicus_ 409
505. Reflected personal pronouns 410
506. Reflective neuter verbs 410
507. Equivocal reflectives 411
CHAPTER VI.
ON THE SYNTAX OF THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS, AND ON THE
PRONOUNS OF THE THIRD PERSON.
508. True demonstrative pronoun 412
509. _His mother_, _her father_ 412
{xxxvi}
510, 511. Use of _its_ 412
512. _Take them things away_ 413
513, 514. _Hic_ and _ille_, _this_ and _that_ 413
CHAPTER VII.
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORD _SELF_.
515. Government, apposition, composition 416
516. _Her-self_, _itself_ 416
517. _Self_ and _one_ 417
518, 519. Inflection of _self_ 418
CHAPTER VIII.
ON THE POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS.
520, 521. _My_ and _mine_, &c. 419
CHAPTER IX.
THE RELATIVE PRONOUNS.
522-524. _That_, _which_, _what_ 422
525. _The man_ as _rides to market_ 423
526, 527. Plural use of _whose_ 423
528, 529. Concord of relative and antecedent 423
530. Ellipsis of the relative 424
531. Relative equivalent to demonstrative pronoun 425
Demonstrative equivalent to substantive 425
532. Omission of antecedent 426
533. [Greek: Chromai bibliois hois echo] 426
534. Relatives with complex antecedents 427
CHAPTER X.
ON THE INTERROGATIVE PRONOUNS.
535. Direct and oblique interrogations 428
536-539. _Whom do they say that it is?_ 428-430
CHAPTER XI.
THE RECIPROCAL CONSTRUCTION.
540, 541. Structure of reciprocal expressions 431
{xxxvii}
CHAPTER XII.
THE INDETERMINATE PRONOUNS.
542. _On dit_=_one says_ 433
543-546. _It_ and _there_ 433
_Es sind_ 434
CHAPTER XIII.
THE ARTICLES.
547. Repetition of article 435
CHAPTER XIV.
THE NUMERALS.
548. _The thousand-and-first_ 436
549. _The first two_ and _two first_ 436
CHAPTER XV.
ON VERBS IN GENERAL.
550. Transitive verbs 437
551. Auxiliary verbs 438
552. Verb substantive 438
CHAPTER XVI.
THE CONCORD OF VERBS.
553-556. Concord of person 439
557. Plural subjects with singular predicates 443
Singular subjects with plural predicates 443
CHAPTER XVII.
ON THE GOVERNMENT OF VERBS.
558, 559. _Objective_ and _modal_ government 444
560. Appositional construction 445
561. Verb and genitive case 448
562. Verb and accusative case 448
563. The partitive construction 448
564. _I believe it to be him_ 448
565. [Greek: phemi einai despotes] 449
566. _It is believed to be_ 449
{xxxviii}
CHAPTER XVIII.
ON THE PARTICIPLES.
567. _Dying-day_ 451
568. _I am beaten_ 451
CHAPTER XIX.
ON THE MOODS.
569. The infinitive mood 452
570. Objective construction 452
570. Gerundial construction 453
571. Peculiarities of imperatives 454
572. Syntax of subjunctives 454
CHAPTER XX.
ON THE TENSES.
573. Present form habitual 455
574. Praeterite form aorist 455
CHAPTER XXI.
SYNTAX OF THE PERSONS OF VERBS.
575, 576. _I, or he am (is) wrong_ 456
CHAPTER XXII.
ON THE VOICES OF VERBS.
577. The word _hight_ 458
CHAPTER XXIII.
ON THE AUXILIARY VERBS.
578. Classification 459
579. Time and tense 461
Present 461
Aorist 461
Future 461
Imperfect 462
Perfect 462
{xxxix}
Pluperfect 462
Future present 462
Future praeterite 462
Emphatic tenses 463
Predictive future 463
Promissive future 463
580. _Historic_ present 463
581. Use of perfect for present 464
582, 583. Varieties of tense 465
Continuance 465
Habit 466
584. Inference of continuance 466
Inference of contrast 467
585. _Have_ with a participle 467
586. _I am to speak_ 469
587. _I am to blame_ 469
588. _Shall_ and _will_ 469
589. Archdeacon Hare's theory 470
590. Mr. De Morgan's theory 472
591. _I am beaten_ 474
592, 593. Present use of _ought, &c._ 475
CHAPTER XXIV.
THE SYNTAX OF ADVERBS.
594. The syntax of adverbs simple 477
595. _Full_ for _fully, &c._ 477
596. The termination _-ly_ 477
597. _To sleep the sleep of the righteous_ 478
598. From _whence, &c._ 478
CHAPTER XXV.
ON PREPOSITIONS.
599. All prepositions govern cases 479
600, 601. None, in English, govern genitives 479
602. Dative case after prepositions 481
603. From _to die_ 481
604. For _to go_ 481
605. No prepositions in composition 481
{xl}
CHAPTER XXVI.
ON CONJUNCTIONS.
606. Syntax of conjunctions 482
607. Convertibility of conjunctions 482
608. Connexion of prepositions 483
609, 610. Relatives and conjunctions 484
611. Government of mood 485
612. Conditional propositions 486
613. Variations of meaning 486
614. _If_ and _since_ 487
615. Use of that 487
616. Succession of tenses 488
Succession of moods 489
617. Greek constructions 489
618. _Be_ for _may be_ 491
619. Disjunctives 491
620-623. Either, neither 492
CHAPTER XXVII.
THE SYNTAX OF THE NEGATIVE.
624. Position of the negative 495
625. Distribution of the negative 495
626. Double negative 496
627. Questions of appeal 496
628. Extract from Sir Thomas More 496
CHAPTER XXVIII.
OF THE CASE ABSOLUTE.
629. _He excepted, him excepted_
498
. . . . . .
PART VI.
PROSODY.
630-632. Metre 499
633. Classical metres measured by quantities 500
634. English metre measured by accents 500
{xli}
635. Alliteration 500
636. Rhyme 501
637. Definition of Rhyme 503
638. Measures 503
639. Dissyllabic and trisyllabic 503
640. Dissyllabic measures 504
641. Trisyllabic measures 504
642. Measures different from feet 505
643. Couplets, stanzas, &c. 506
644, 645. Names of elementary metres 507, 508
646. Scansion 509
647. Symmetrical metres 509
648. Unsymmetrical metres 510
649. Measures of _one_ and of _four_ syllables 510
650. Contrast between English words and English metre 510
651-653. The classical metres as read by Englishmen 511, 512
654-657. Reasons against the classical nomenclature as applied to
English metres 513-515
658-661. The classical metres metrical to English readers--why
515-517
662. Symmetrical metres 517
663. Unsymmetrical metres 517
664. Classical metres unsymmetrical 518
665-667. Conversion of English into classical metres 519, 520
668, 669. Caesura 520, 521
670-672. English hexameters, &c. 522-526
673. Convertible metres 526
674. Metrical and grammatical combinations 527
675. Rhythm 528
676, 677. Rhyme--its parts 529
. . . . . .
PART VII.
THE DIALECTS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
678. Bearing of the investigation 531
679. Structural and _ethnological_ views 531
680-682. Causes that effect change 532
683, 684. Preliminary notices 533
685. Philological preliminaries 533
686, 687. Present provincial dialects 534-540
688-691. Caution 540-544
{xlii}
692-696. Districts north of the Humber 545-552
697. South Lancashire 552
698. Shropshire, &c. 553
699. East Derbyshire, &c. 553
700. Norfolk and Suffolk 554
701. Leicestershire, &c. 555
702. Origin of the present written language 555
703. Dialects of the Lower Thames 556
704. Kent--Frisian theory 557
705. Sussex, &c. 559
706. Supposed East Anglian and Saxon frontier 560
707. Dialects of remaining counties 560
708. Objections 561
709. Dialect of Gower 561
710. ---- the Barony of Forth 563
711. Americanisms 565
712. Extract from a paper of Mr. Watts 566
713. Gypsy language, &c. 572
714. _Talkee-talkee_ 573
715, 716. Varieties of the Anglo-Norman 574
717-719. Extracts from Mr. Kemble 575-580
PRAXIS 581
* * * * *
{1}
AN INTRODUCTION
TO THE STUDY OF
THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
* * * * *
PART I.
GENERAL ETHNOLOGICAL RELATIONS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
--------
CHAPTER I.
GERMANIC ORIGIN OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.--DATE.
s. 1. The first point to be remembered in the history of the English
Language, is that it was not the original language of any of the British
Islands altogether or of any portion of them. Indeed, of the _whole_ of
Great Britain it is not the language at the present moment. Welsh is spoken
in Wales, Manks in the Isle of Man, Scotch Gaelic in the Highlands of
Scotland, and Irish Gaelic in Ireland. Hence, the English that is now
spoken was once as foreign to our country as it is at present to the East
Indies; and it is no more our primitive vernacular tongue, than it is the
primitive vernacular tongue for North America, Jamaica, or Australia. Like
the English of Sydney, or the English of Pennsylvania, the English of Great
Britain spread itself at the expense of some earlier and more aboriginal
language, which it displaced and superseded. {2}
s. 2. The next point involves the real origin and the real affinities of
the English Language. Its _real_ origin is on the continent of Europe, and
its _real_ affinities are with certain languages there spoken. To speak
more specifically, the native country of the English Language is _Germany_;
and the _Germanic_ languages are those that are the most closely connected
with our own. In Germany, languages and dialects allied to each other and
allied to the mother-tongue of the English have been spoken from times
anterior to history; and these, for most purposes of philology, may be
considered as the aboriginal languages and dialects of that country.
s. 3. _Accredited details of the different immigrations from Germany into
Britain._--Until lately the details of the different Germanic invasions of
England, both in respect to the particular tribes by which they were made,
and the order in which they succeeded each other, were received with but
little doubt, and as little criticism.
Respecting the tribes by which they were made, the current opinion was,
that they were chiefly, if not exclusively, those of the Jutes, the Saxons,
and the Angles.
The particular chieftains that headed each descent were also known, as well
as the different localities upon which they descended. These were as
follows:--
s. 4. _First settlement of invaders from Germany._--The account of this
gives us the year 449 for the first permanent Germanic tribes settled in
Britain. Ebbsfleet, in the Isle of Thanet, was the spot where they landed;
and the particular name that these tribes gave themselves was that of
_Jutes_. Their leaders were Hengist and Horsa. Six years after their
landing they had established the kingdom of Kent; so that the county of
Kent was the first district where the original British was superseded by
the mother-tongue of the present English, introduced from Germany.
s. 5. _Second settlement of invaders from Germany._--In the year 477
invaders from Northern Germany made the second permanent settlement in
Britain. The coast of Sussex was the spot whereon they landed. The
particular name that these tribes gave themselves was that of _Saxons_.
Their leader {3} was Ella. They established the kingdom of the South Saxons
(Sussex); so that the county of Sussex was the second district where the
original British was superseded by the mother-tongue of the present
English, introduced from Northern Germany.
s. 6. _Third settlement of invaders from Germany._--In the year 495
invaders from Northern Germany made the third permanent settlement in
Britain. The coast of Hampshire was the spot whereon they landed. Like the
invaders last mentioned, these tribes were Saxons. Their leader was Cerdic.
They established the kingdom of the West Saxons (Wessex); so that the
county of Hants was the third district where the original British was
superseded by the mother-tongue of the present English, introduced from
Northern Germany.
s. 7. _Fourth settlement of invaders from Germany._--A.D. 530, certain
Saxons landed in Essex, so that the county of Essex was the fourth district
where the original British was superseded by the mother-tongue of the
present English, introduced from Northern Germany.
s. 8. _Fifth settlement of invaders from Germany._--These were _Angles_ in
Norfolk and Suffolk. This settlement, of which the precise date is not
known, took place during the reign of Cerdic in Wessex. The fifth district
where the original British was superseded by the mother-tongue of the
present English was the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk; the particular
dialect introduced being that of the _Angles_.
s. 9. _Sixth settlement of invaders from Germany._--In the year 547
invaders from Northern Germany made the sixth permanent settlement in
Britain. The south-eastern counties of Scotland, between the rivers Tweed
and Forth, were the districts where they landed. They were of the tribe of
the Angles, and their leader was Ida. The south-eastern parts of Scotland
constituted the sixth district where the original British was superseded by
the mother-tongue of the present English, introduced from Northern Germany.
s. 10. It would be satisfactory if these details rested upon cotemporary
evidence; in which case the next question would {4} be that of the
relations of the immigrant tribes to each other _as Germans_, _i.e._ the
extent to which the Jute differed from (or agreed with) the Angle, or the
Saxon, and the relations of the Angle and the Saxon to each other. Did they
speak different languages?--different dialects of a common tongue!--or
dialects absolutely identical? Did they belong to the same or to different
confederations? Was one polity common to all? Were the civilizations
similar?
Questions like these being answered, and a certain amount of mutual
difference being ascertained, it would then stand over to inquire whether
any traces of this original difference were still to be found in the modern
English. Have any provincial dialects characteristics which are Jute rather
than Angle? or Angle rather than Saxon?
It is clear that the second of these questions is involved in the answer
given to the first.
s. 11. _The accredited relations of the Jutes, Angles, and Saxons to each
other as Germans._--These are as follows:--
1. That the geographical locality of the Jutes was the Peninsula of
Jutland.
2. That that of Angles, was the present Dutchy of Sleswick; so that they
were the southern neighbours of the Jutes.
3. That that of the Saxons was a small tract north of the Elbe, and some
distinct point--more or less extensive--between the Elbe and Rhine.
4. That, although there were, probably, dialectal differences between the
languages, the speech of all the three tribes was mutually intelligible.
s. 12. Assuming, then, the accuracy of our historical facts, the inference
is, that, without expecting to find any very prominent and characteristic
differences between the different inhabitants of England arising out of the
original differences between the Germanic immigrants, we are to look for
what few there are in the following quarters--
1. For the characteristic _differentiae_ of the Jutes, in Kent, part of
Sussex, and the Isle of Wight.
2. For those of the Saxons in Sussex, Essex, Hants (Wessex), and Middlesex.
{5}
3. For those of the Angles in Norfolk, Suffolk, Yorkshire, Durham, and
Northumberland.
Or, changing the expression:--
1. The _differentiae_ of the people of Kent, part of Sussex, and the Isle
of Wight (if any), are to be explained by the _differentiae_ of the
original Jute immigrants--
2. Those of the rest of Sussex, Wessex, Essex, and Middlesex, by those of
the Saxons--
3. Those of the people of Norfolk, &c., by those of the Angles.
Such is our reasoning, and such a sketch of our philological
researches--assuming that the opinions just exhibited, concerning the
dates, conductors, localities, and order, are absolute and unimpeachable
historical facts.
s. 13. _Criticism of the aforesaid details._--As a preliminary to this part
of the subject, the present writer takes occasion to state once for all,
that nearly the whole of the following criticism is not his own (except, of
course, so far as he adopts it--which he does), but Mr. Kemble's, and that
it forms the introduction to his valuable work on the Saxons in England.
1. _The evidence to the details just given, is not historical, but
traditional._--_a._ Bede, from whom it is chiefly taken, wrote more than
300 years after the supposed event, _i.e._, the landing of Hengist and
Horsa, in A.D. 449.
_b._ The nearest contemporary author is Gildas, and _he_ lived at least 100
years after it.
2. _The account of Hengist's and Horsa's landing, has elements which are
fictional rather than historical_--_a._ Thus "when we find Hengist and
Horsa approaching the coasts of Kent in three keels, and Aelli effecting a
landing in Sussex with the same number, we are reminded of the Gothic
tradition which carries a migration of Ostrogoths, Visigoths, and Gepidae,
also in three vessels, to the mouths of the Vistula."
_b._ The murder of the British chieftains by Hengist is told _totidem
verbis_, by Widukind, and others of the Old Saxons in Thuringia.
_c._ Geoffry of Monmouth relates also, how "Hengist obtained from the
Britons as much land as could be enclosed {6} by an ox-hide; then, cutting
the hide into thongs, enclosed a much larger space than the granters
intended, on which he erected Thong Castle--a tale too familiar to need
illustration, and which runs throughout the mythus of many nations. Among
the Old Saxons, the tradition is in reality the same, though recorded with
a slight variety of detail. In their story, a lap-full of earth is
purchased at a dear rate from a Thuringian; the companions of the Saxon
jeer him for his imprudent bargain; but he sows the purchased earth upon a
large space of ground, which he claims, and, by the aid of his comrades,
ultimately wrests it from the Thuringians."
3. _There is direct evidence in favour of there having been German tribes
in England anterior to_ A.D. 447.--_a._ At the close of the Marcomannic
war, Marcus Antoninus transplanted a number of Germans into Britain.--Dio
Cassius, lxxi. lxiii.
_b._ Alemannic auxiliaries served along with Roman legions under
Valentinian.
_c._ The _Notitia utriusque imperii_, of which the latest date is half a
century earlier than the epoch of Hengist, mentions, as an officer of
State, the _Comes littoris Saxonici per Britannias_; his government
extending along the coast from Portsmouth to the Wash.
I conclude with the following extract:--"We are ignorant what _fasti_ or
even mode of reckoning the revolutions of seasons prevailed in England,
previous to the introduction of Christianity. We know not how any event
before the year 600 was recorded, or to what period the memory of man
extended. There may have been rare annals: there may have been poems: if
such there were they have perished, and have left no trace behind, unless
we are to attribute to them such scanty notices as the Saxon Chronicle adds
to Beda's account. From such sources, however, little could have been
gained of accurate information either as to the real internal state, the
domestic progress, or development of a people. The dry bare entries of the
Chronicles in historical periods may supply the means of judging what sort
of annals were likely to exist before the general introduction of the Roman
alphabet and parchment, while, in all probability, runes supplied the place
of letters, and {7} stones, or the _beech_-wood, from which their name is
derived, of _books_. Again, the traditions embodied in the epic, are
pre-eminently those of kings and princes; they are heroical, devoted to
celebrate the divine or half-divine founders of a race, the fortunes of
their warlike descendants, the manners and mode of life of military
adventurers, not the obscure progress, household peace, and orderly habits
of the humble husband-man. They are full of feasts and fighting, shining
arms and golden goblets: the gods mingle among men almost their equals,
share in the same pursuits, are animated by the same passions of love, and
jealousy, and hatred; or, blending the divine with the mortal nature,
become the founders of races, kingly, because derived from divinity itself.
But one race knows little of another, or its traditions, and cares as
little for them. Alliances or wars alone bring them in contact with one
another, and the terms of intercourse between the races will, for the most
part, determine the character under which foreign heroes shall be admitted
into the national epos, or whether they shall be admitted at all. All
history, then, which is founded in any degree upon epical tradition (and
national history is usually more or less so founded) must be to that extent
imperfect, if not inaccurate; only when corrected by the written references
of contemporaneous authors, can we assign any certainty to its records.
"Let us apply these observations to the early events of Saxon history: of
Kent, indeed, we have the vague and uncertain notices which I have
mentioned; even more vague and uncertain are those of Sussex and Wessex. Of
the former, we learn that in the year 477, Aelli, with three sons, Cymen,
Wlencing, and Cissa, landed in Sussex; that in the year 485 they defeated
the Welsh, and that in 491 they destroyed the population of Anderida. Not
another word is there about Sussex before the arrival of Augustine, except
a late assertion of the military pre-eminence of Aelli among the Saxon
chieftains. The events of Wessex are somewhat better detailed; we learn
that in 495 two nobles, Cerdic and Cyner['i]c, came to England, and landed
at _Cerdices-ora_, where, on the {8} same day, they fought a battle: that
in 501 they were followed by a noble named Port, who, with his two sons,
Bieda and Maegla, made a forcible landing at Portsmouth: and that in 508,
they gained a great battle over a British king, whom they slew, together
with five thousand of his people. In 514 Stuff and Wihtg['a]r, their
nephews, brought them a reinforcement of three ships; in 519, they again
defeated the Britons, and established the kingdom of Wessex. In 527, a new
victory is recorded; in 530, the Isle of Wight was subdued and given to
Wihtg['a]r; and in 534, Cerdic died, and was succeeded by Cyner['i]c, who
reigned twenty-six years. In 544, Wihtg['a]r died. A victory of Cyner['i]c,
in 552 and 556, and Ceawlin's accession to the throne of Wessex are next
recorded. Wars of the West-Saxon kings are noted in 568, 571, 577, 584.
From 590 to 595, a king of that race, named Ce['o]l, is mentioned: in 591,
we learn the expulsion of Ceawlin from power; in 593, the deaths of
Ceawlin, Cwichelm, and Crida, are mentioned, and in 597, the year of
Augustine's arrival, we learn that Ce['o]lwulf ascended the throne of
Wessex.
"Meagre as these details are, they far exceed what is related of
Northumberland, Essex, or East-Anglia. In 547, we are told that Ida began
to reign in the first of these kingdoms, and that he was succeeded in 560,
by Aelli: that after a reign of _thirty_ years, he died in 588, and was
succeeded by Aethelr['i]c, who again, in 593, was succeeded by Aethelfrith.
This is all we learn of Northumbria; of Mercia, Essex, East-Anglia, and the
innumerable kingdoms that must have been comprised under these general
appellations, we hear not a single word.
"If this be all that we can now recover of events, a great number of which
must have fallen within the lives of those to whom Augustine preached, what
credit shall we give to the inconsistent accounts of earlier actions? How
shall we supply the almost total want of information respecting the first
settlements? What explanation have we to give of the alliance between
Jutes, Angles, and Saxon, which preceded the invasions of England? What
knowledge will these records {9} supply of the real number and quality of
the chieftains, the language and blood of the populations who gradually
spread themselves from the Atlantic to the Frith of Forth; of the remains
of Roman cultivation, or the amount of British power with which they had to
contend? of the vicissitudes of good and evil fortune which visited the
independent principalities before they were swallowed up in the kingdoms of
the heptarchy, or the extent of the influence which they retained after the
event! On all these several points we are left entirely in the dark; and
yet these are facts which it most imports us to know, if we would
comprehend the growth of a society which endured for at least 700 years in
England, and formed the foundation of that in which we live."--_The Saxons
in England._ Vol. I, pp. 28-32.
s. 14. _Inference._--As it is nearly certain, that the year 449 is _not_
the date of the first introduction of German tribes into Britain, we must
consider that the displacement of the original British began at an earlier
period than the one usually admitted, and, consequently, that it was more
gradual than is usually supposed.
Perhaps, if we substitute the middle of the fourth, instead of the middle
of the fifth century, as the epoch of the Germanic immigrations into
Britain, we shall not be far from the truth.
* * * * *
{10}
CHAPTER II.
GERMANIC ORIGIN OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.--THE IMMIGRANT TRIBES, AND THEIR
RELATIONS TO EACH OTHER.
s. 15. By referring to ss. 3-12, it may be seen that out of the numerous
tribes and nations of Germany, _three_ in particular have been considered
as the chief, if not the exclusive, sources of the present English, viz.:
the Angles, the Saxons and the Jutes.
To criticise the evidence which derives the _English_ in general from the
_Angles_, the particular inhabitants of _Sussex_, _Essex_, _Middlesex_ and
_Wessex_, from the _Saxons_, and the _Anglo-Saxon_ language from the
_Angle_ and _Saxon_ would be superfluous; whilst to doubt the truth of the
main facts which it attests would exhibit an unnecessary and unhealthy
scepticism. That the Angles and Saxons formed at least seven-tenths of the
Germanic invaders may be safely admitted. The _Jute_ element, however,
requires further notice.
s. 16. The _Jutes_.--Were any of the German immigrants _Jutes_? If so, what
were their relations to the other German tribes?
_a._ Were there Jutes in England? That there was a Jute element in England
is to be maintained, not upon the _tradition_ that one of the three ships
of Hengist and Horsa was manned by Jutes, but from the following extract
from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle:--
"Of Jotum comon Cantware and
Wihtware, thaet is seo maeiadh, the n['u]
eardath on Wiht, and thaet cynn on
West-Sexum dhe man gyt haet I['u]tnacynn.
Of Eald-Seaxum comon
E['a]st-Seaxan, and Sudh-Seaxan, and
West-Seaxan. Of Angle comon
{11}
(se ['a] sidhdhan st['o]d westig betwix
I['u]tum and Seaxum) E['a]st-Engle,
Middel-Angle, Mearce, and ealle
Nordhymbra."
From the Jutes came the inhabitants
of Kent and of Wight, that is,
the race that now dwells in Wight,
and that tribe amongst the West-Saxons
which is yet called the Jute
tribe. From the Old-Saxons came
the East-Saxons, and South-Saxons,
and West-Saxons. From the Angles Land
(which has since always stood
waste betwixt the Jutes and Saxons)
came the East-Angles, Middle-Angles,
Mercians, and all the Northumbrians.
Here the words _gyt haet I['u]tnacynn_ constitute cotemporary evidence.
Still there is a flaw in it; since it is quite possible that the term
_I['u]tnacynn_ may have been no true denomination of a section of the
Germans of England, but only the synonym of a different word,
_Wiht-saetan_. Alfred writes--comon hi of thrym folcum tham strangestan
Germaniae; thaet of _Seaxum_, and of _Angle_, and of _Geatum_. Of Geatum
fruman sindon Cantware and _Wiht-saetan_, thaet is seo the['o]d se Wiht
thaet ealond on eardadh--_they came of three folk, the strongest of
Germany; that of_ Saxons _and of_ Angles, _and of_ Geats. _Of_ Geats
_originally are_ the Kent people _and_ Wiht-set; _that is the people which_
Wiht _the Island live on_.
This changes the reasoning, and leads us to the following facts.
_a._ The word in question is a compound=_Wight_=_the name of the isle_, +
_saetan_=_people_; as Somer-_set_, and Dor-_set_.
_b._ The peninsula _Jut_-land was also called _Vit_-land, or _With_-land.
_c._ The _wiht_- in _Wiht_-saetan is, undoubtedly, no such element as the
_vit_- in _Vit_-land=_Jut-land_; since it represents the older Celtic term,
known to us in the Romanized form _Vectis_.
Putting all this together, it becomes possible (nay probable) that the
whole doctrine of a _Jute_ element in the Anglo-Saxon migration may have
arisen out of the fact of there being a portion of the people of Southern
England neighbours of the Saxons, and bearing the name _Wiht_-saetan; a
fact which, taken along with the juxtaposition of the _Vit_-landers
(_Jut_-landers) and Saxons on the Continent, suggested to the writers of a
long later age the doctrine of a Jute migration.
s. 17. As this last objection impugns the evidence rather than the fact,
the following question finds place:-- {12}
What were the Jutes of Germany? At present they are the natives of Jutland,
and their language is Danish rather than German.
Neither is there reason to suppose that during the third and fourth
centuries it was otherwise.
s. 18. This last circumstance detracts from the likelihood of the _fact_;
since in no part of Kent, Sussex, Hants, nor even in the Isle of Wight--a
likely place for a language to remain unchanged--have any traces of the old
Jute been found.
s. 19. On the other hand the fact of Jutes, _even though Danes_, being
members of a Germanic confederation is not only probable, but such was
actually the case; at least for continental wars--_subactis, cum Saxonibus,
Euciis_ (Eutiis), _qui se nobis_ (_i.e._, the Franks), _propri[^a]
voluntate tradiderunt ... usque in Oceani littoribus dominio nostro
porrigitur_.--Theodebert to the Emperor Justinian.--
"Quem _Geta_, Vasco tremunt, Danus, Eutheo,[1] Saxo, Britannus,
Cum patre quos acie te domitasse patet."
Venantius Fortunatus ad Chilpericum regem.[2]
s. 20. _Inference._--Of the three following views--(1.) that the Jutes of
Jutland in the fourth and fifth centuries spoke Saxon; (2.) that they spoke
Danish at home, but lost their language after three or four centuries'
residence in England; and (3.) that a later historian was induced by the
similarity between the term _Wiht-saetan_, as applied to the _people of the
Isle of Wight_, and _Wit-land_, as applied to _Jutland_, combined with the
real probability of the fact supposed, to assume a Jute origin for the
Saxons of the parts in question, the third is, in the mind of the present
writer, the most probable.
s. 21. It has already been stated that concerning the Angles and Saxons, no
reasonable man will put the question which was put in respect to the Jutes,
_viz._, had they any real place among the Germanic invaders of England?
Respecting, however, their relations to each other, and their respective
geographical localities whilst occupants of Germany, anterior to {13} their
immigration into Britain, there is much that requires investigation. What
were the Saxons of Germany--what the Angles?
s. 22. _Difficulties respecting the identification of the Saxons._--There
are two senses of the word _Saxon_, one of which causes difficulty by being
too limited; the other by being too wide.
_a._ _The limited sense of the word Saxon._--This is what we get from
Ptolemy, the first author who names the Saxons, and who gives them a
limited locality at the mouth of the Elbe, bounded by the Sigulones, the
Sabalingi, the Kobandi, the Chali, the Phundusii, the Harudes, and other
tribes of the Cimbric Peninsula, of which the Saxons just occupied the
neck, and three small islands opposite--probably Fohr, Sylt, and Nordstand.
Now a sense of the word _Saxon_ thus limited, would restrict the joint
conquerors of Britain to the small area comprized between the Elbe and
Eyder, of which they do not seem even to have held the whole.
_b._ _The wide sense of the word Saxon._--The reader need scarcely be
reminded that the present kingdom of Saxony is as far inland as the
northern frontier of Bohemia. Laying this, however, out of the question, as
the effect of an extension subsequent to the invasion of Britain, we still
find Saxons in ancient Hanover, ancient Oldenburg, ancient Westphalia, and
(speaking roughly) over the greater part of the country drained by the
Weser, and of the area inclosed by the eastern feeders of the Lower Rhine,
the Elbe, and the range of the Hartz.
Now as it is not likely that the limited Saxon area of Ptolemy should have
supplied the whole of our Saxon population, so on the other hand, it is
certain, that of a considerable portion of the Saxon area in its _wider_
extent tribes other than the Saxons of England, were occupants.
s. 23. _Difficulties respecting the word Angle._--The reader is referred to
an extract from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, in s. 16, where it is stated,
that "from the Angles' land (which has since always stood waste betwixt the
Jutes and the {14} Saxons) came the East-Angles, Middle-Angles, Mercians,
and all the Northumbrians."
Thus to bring the great Angle population from an area no larger than the
county of Rutland, is an objection--but it is not the chief one.
The chief objection to the Angles of England being derived from the little
district of Anglen, in Sleswick, lies in the fact of there being mention of
_Angli_ in another part of Germany.
s. 24. This exposition of the elements of uncertainty will be followed by
an enumeration of--
1. Those portions of the Germanic populations, which from their
geographical position, are the likeliest, _[`a] priori_, to have helped to
people England.
2. Those portions of the Germanic population, which although not supposed
to have contributed in any notable degree to the population of Britain, had
such continental relations to the Angles and Saxons, as to help in fixing
their localities.
These two scenes of facts, give us what may be called our preliminary
_apparatus criticus_.
s. 25. Between the northern limits of the Celtic populations of Gaul and
the southern boundary of the Scandinavians of Jutland, we find the area
which is most likely to have given origin to the Germans of England. This
is best considered under two heads.
_a._ That of the proper _seaboard_, or the _coast_ from the Rhine to the
Eyder.
_b._ That of the _rivers_, _i.e._, the communications between the ocean and
the inland country.
This double division is _sufficient_, since it is not likely that Britain
was peopled by any tribes which were not either maritime, or the occupants
of a river.
On the other hand, it is _necessary_, since although the _[`a] priori_ view
is in favour of the _coast_ having supplied the British immigration, the
chances of its having proceeded from the interior by the way of the large
rivers Rhine, Weser, and Elbe, must also be taken into consideration. {15}
The importance of this latter alternative, will soon be seen.
s. 26. _The Menapians._--Locality, from the country of the Morini on the
French side of the Straits of Dover, to the Scheldt. It is generally
considered that these were not Germans but Celts. The fact, however, is by
no means ascertained. If Germans, the Menapians were the tribes nearest to
Britain. Again, supposing that the present Flemings of Belgium are the
oldest inhabitants of the country, their origin is either wholly, or in
part, Menapian. Mentioned by Caesar.
s. 27. _The Batavians._--Mentioned by Caesar; locality, from the Maas to
the Zuyder Zee. Conterminous with the Menapians on the south, and with the
Frisians on the north. If the present Dutch of Holland be the inhabitants
of the country from the time of Caesar downwards, their origin is Batavian.
s. 28. _The Frisians._--First known to the Romans during the campaign of
Drusus--"tributum _Frisiis_ transrhenano populo--Drusus jusserat
modicum;"[3] Tacitus, Ann. iv. 72. Extended, according to Ptolemy, as far
north as the Ems--[Greek: ten de parokeanitin katechousin ... hoi
Phrissioi, mechri tou Amisiou potamou].
Now, as the dialect of the modern province of Friesland differs in many
important points from the Dutch of Holland and Flanders; and as there is
every reason to believe that the same, or greater difference, existed
between the old Frisians and the old Batavians, assuming each to have been
the mother-tongues of the present Frisian and Dutch respectively, we may
consider that in reaching the parts to the north of the Zuyder-Zee, we have
come to a second sub-division of the Germanic dialects; nevertheless, it is
not the division to which either the Angles or the Saxons belong, as may be
ascertained by the difference of dialect, or rather language.
s. 29. _The Chauci._--Connected with the Frisii.--Falling into two
divisions--the lesser (?) Chauci, from the Ems to the Weser; the greater
(?) Chauci from the Weser to the Elbe--[Greek: meta de toutous] (the
Frisians), {16} [Greek: Kauchoi hoi mikroi mechri tou Ouisourgios potamou,
eita Kauchoi hoi meizous, mechri tou Albios potamou.]
Tacitus describes the Chauci thus:--"Tam immensum terrarum spatium non
tenent tantum Chauci, sed et implent; populus inter Germanos nobilissimus."
The Frisians, as has been stated, represent a separate subdivision of the
German dialects, as opposed to the ancient Batavian, and the modern Dutch
and Flemish. Did the Chauci represent a third, or were they part of the
Frisian division?
The latter is the more likely, and that for the following reasons--Vestiges
of Frisian dialects are to be found on the Continent, in Oldenburgh, and
also in the island of Heligoland.
More important still is the North-Frisian dialect. _North of the Elbe_, in
the Dutchy of Sleswick, and from the Eyder to Tondern, we find a tract of
land called, by Saxo Grammaticus, _Frisia Minor_, and by other writers,
_Frisia Eydorensis_.
Now, as there are no grounds for considering these _North_ Frisians as
other than indigenous to the tract in question, we get an additional reason
for looking upon the intermediate line of coast as Frisian rather than
either Angle or Saxon--or, at least, such parts of it as are not expressly
stated to be otherwise.
s. 30. _Inference._--As the whole coast south of the Elbe seems to have
been occupied by tribes speaking either Frisian or Batavian dialects, and
as neither of these sub-divisions represents the language of the Angles and
Saxons, the original localities of those invaders must be sought for either
north of the Elbe, or inland, along the course of the rivers,
_i.e._--inland.
s. 31. _The Saxons and Nordalbingians._--North of the Elbe, and south of
the Eyder (as stated in s. 22), we meet the Saxons of Ptolemy; but that in
a very circumscribed locality.
In the ninth century, the tribes of these parts are divided into three
divisions:--
_a._ The _Holtsati_=the people of Holstein. Here _holt_=_wood_, whilst
_sat_ is the _-set_ in Somer-_set_ and Dor-_set_. {17}
_b._ The _Thiedmarsi_=_the people of Ditmarsh_.
_c._ The _Stormarii_=_the people of Stormar_.
Besides the names of these three particular divisions the tribes between
the Elbe and Eyder were called by the _general_ name of
_Nordalbingii_=_i.e. people to the north of the Elbe_.
s. 32. _The people of Anglen_--North of the Nordalbingii; Anglen being the
name of a _district_ between the Schlie and Flensburg.
s. 33. _The Jutes._--In _Jut_-land, north of the Angles and the
Northfrisians.
s. 34. _The Saxons of Holstein, how large their area?_--There is no reason
for considering the Nordalbingian _Holtsati_, _Thiedmarsi_ and _Stormarii_
as other than Saxons; although the fact of the Northfrisians to the north,
and of the Frisians of Hanover to the south of them, is a slight
complication of the _prim[^a] facie_ view.
Neither is it necessary to identify the two divisions, and to consider the
Saxons as Frisians, or the Frisians as Saxons, as is done by some authors.
It is only necessary to perceive the complication which the existence of
the Northfrisians introduces, and to recognise the improbability of _parts_
of the present dutchies of Holstein and Sleswick having constituted the
_whole_ of the Anglo-Saxon area.
In other words, we have to ascertain in what direction the Germanic
population represented by the Saxons at the mouth of the Elbe extended
itself--for some further extension there undoubtedly must have been.
s. 35. This brings us to the other series of preliminary facts, viz.: the
consideration of the more important tribes of the middle and lower courses
of the three great rivers, the Rhine, the Weser, and the Elbe.
s. 36. _The Germans of the Middle Rhine._--Of the Germans of the Lower and
Middle Rhine, it is only necessary to mention one--
_The Franks._--We shall see that, taking the two terms in their widest
sense, the _Franks_ and the _Saxons_ were in contact, a fact which makes it
necessary to notice at least some portion of the Frank area. {18}
_a._ _Salian Franks._--If the element _Sal-_ represent the _-sel_, in the
name of the Dutch river _Y-ssel_, the locality of the Salian Franks was
Overyssel and Guelderland, whilst their ethnological relations were most
probably with the Batavians.
_b._ _Chamavi._--In the Tabula Peutingeriana we find--Chamavi qui
_Elpranci_ (_leg. et Franci_). They were conterminous with the
Salii--[Greek: Hupedexamen men moiran tou Salion ethnous, Chamabous de
exelasa].--Julian, Op. p. 280.--D.N.
The following extract is more important, as it shows that a Roman
communication _at least_ took place between the Rhine and Britain: [Greek:
Chamabon gar me bouleuomenon, adunaton estin ten tes Bretannikes nesou
sitopompian epi ta Rhomaika phrouria diapempesthai].--Eunap. in Except.
leg. ed., Bonn, p. 42.--D.N.
The name Chamavi is still preserved in that of the district of _Hameland_,
near Deventer.--D.N. and G.D.S.
The Bructeri, Sigambri, and Ripuarian Franks bring us to the Franks of the
Middle Rhine, a portion of the division which it is not necessary to
follow.
s. 37. _The Thuringians._--First mentioned in the beginning of the fourth
century. Locality, between the Hartz, the Werra a feeder of the Weser, and
the Sala a feeder of the Elbe. As early as the sixth century the
Thuringians and Saxons are conterminous, and members of the same
confederation against the Franks.--D.N.
s. 38. _The Catti._--Locality, the valley of the Fulda, forming part of the
Upper Weser. Conterminous with the Thuringi (from whom they were separated
by the river Werra) on the east, and the Franks on the west. The modern
form of the word _Catti_ is _Hesse_, and the principality of Hesse is their
old locality.--G.D.S.
s. 39._ Geographical conditions of the Saxon area._--_Southern and northern
limits._--The Saxons were in league with the Thuringians and Jutes against
the Franks.
By the Jutes they were limited on the north, by the Thuringians on the
south-east, and by the Franks on the south-west; the middle portion of the
southern frontier being formed by the Catti between the Franks and
Thuringians. {19}
This gives us a _southern_ and a _northern_ limit.
_Western limit._--This is formed by the Batavians and Frisians of the
sea-coast, _i.e._, by the Batavians of Holland, Guelderland, and Overyssel,
and, afterwards, by the Frisians of West and East Friesland, and of
Oldenburg.
Here, however, the breadth of the non-Saxon area is uncertain. Generally
speaking, it is broadest in the southern, and narrowest in the northern
portion. The Frisian line is narrower than the Batavian, whilst when we
reach the Elbe the Saxons appear on the sea-coast. Perhaps they do so on
the Weser as well.
s. 40. _Eastern limit._--_Preliminary remark._--Before the eastern limit of
the Saxons is investigated, it will be well to indicate the extent to which
it differs from the southern.
_a._ The Thuringians, Catti (or Hessians), and Franks, on the southern
boundary of the Saxon area were _Germans_. Hence the line of demarcation
between their language was no broad and definite line, like that between
the English and the Welsh, but rather one representing a difference of
dialect, like that between the Yorkshire and the Lowland Scotch. Hence,
too, we ought not only not to be surprised, if we find dialects
intermediate to the Frank and Saxon, the Saxon and Thuringian, &c., but we
must expect to find them.
_b._ The same is the case with the Batavian and Frisian frontier.--We
really find specimens of language which some writers call Saxon, and others
Dutch (Batavian).
The eastern frontier, however, will be like the frontier between England
and Wales, where the line of demarcation is broad and definite, where there
are no intermediate and transitional dialects, and where the two contiguous
languages belong to different philological classes.--_The languages to the
east of the Saxon area will be allied to the languages of Russia, Poland,
and Bohemia;_ i.e., _they will be not Germanic but Slavonic._
_Note._--The northern frontier of the Saxon area is intermediate in
character to the western and southern on one hand, and to the eastern on
the other; the Danish of the Cimbric Peninsula being--though not
German--Gothic. {20}
We begin at the northern portion of the Saxon area, _i.e._, the
south-eastern corner of the Cimbric Peninsula, and the parts about the Town
of Lubeck; where the Dutchies of Mecklenburg Schwerin and Holstein join.
The attention of the reader is particularly directed to the dates.
s. 41. _Slavonians of Holstein, Mecklenburg, and Lauenburg._--The
_Polabi_--From _po_=_on_, and _Labe_=_the Elbe_. Name Slavonic. Germanized
by the addition of the termination--_ing_, and so become _Po-lab-ing-i_;
just as in _Kent_ we find the _Kent-ing-s_. Conterminous with the
Nordalbingian _Stormarii_, from whom they are divided by the river _Bille_,
a small confluent of the Elbe. Capital Ratzeburg. First mentioned by
writers subsequent to the time of Charlemagne.--D.N.
s. 42. The _Wagrians_.--North of the Polabi, and within the Cimbric
Peninsula, divided from the Danes by the Eyder, from the Non-Danish
Nordalbingians by the Trave. Capital Oldenburg. The Isle of Femern was
Wagrian. Authorities--chiefly writers of and subsequent to the time of
Charlemagne. In one of these we learn that the town of _Hadhum_ (Sleswick)
lies between the Angles, the Saxons, and the _Wends_.
Now, _Wend_ is the German designation of the _Slavonians_; so that there
must have been Slavonians in the Cimbric Peninsula at least as early as the
ninth century.--D.N.
s. 43. _Obotriti_, written also _Obotritae_, _Abotriti_, _Abotridi_;
_Apodritae_, _Abatareni_, _Apdrede_, _Afdrege_, and for the sake of
distinction from a people of the same name, _Nort-Obtrezi_, occupants of
the western part of Mecklenburg, and extended as far east as the Warnow, as
far south as Schwerin. Called by Adam of Bremen, _Reregi_. The Obotrites
were allies of the Franks against the Saxons, and after the defeat and
partial removal of the latter, were transplanted to some of their
localities.--"Saxones transtulit" (_i.e._, Charlemagne), "in Franciam et
pagos transalbianos Abodritis dedit."--Eginhart Ann. A.D. 804.--D.N.
s. 44. The _Lini_--Slavonians on the left bank of the Elbe, and the first
met with on that side of the river. Occupants of Danneburg, Luchow and
Wustrow, in Luneburg. By the {21} writers subsequent to the time of
Charlemagne the _Smeldengi_ (a German designation), and the _Bethenici_ are
mentioned along with the Lini (or Linones). Of this Slavonic a Paternoster
may be seen in the Mithridates representing the dialect of the
neighbourhood in Luchow in A.D. 1691. It is much mixed with the German.
About the middle of the last century this (Cis-Albian Slavonic) dialect
became extinct.--D.N.
s. 45. The _Warnabi_ or _Warnavi_.--Locality. Parts about Grabow, Valley of
the Elbe. This is the locality of the _Varini_ of Tacitus, the [Greek:
Ouirounoi] of Ptolemy, and the _Werini_ of later writers, a tribe connected
with the Angli, and generally considered as Germanic.--D.N.
s. 46. _Morizani._--The district round the Moritz Lake.--D.N.
s. 47. _Doxani._--Locality; the valley of the Dosse.--D.N.
s. 48. _Hevelli._--Locality; the valley of the Hevel. These are the
Slavonians of Brandenburg and Mittelmark.--D.N.
s. 49. _Slavonians of Altmark._--In Altmark, as in Lunenburg, though on the
German side of the Elbe we find the names of the places Slavonic, _e.g._,
Klotze, Wrepke, Solpke, Blatz, Regatz, Colbitz, &c.; so that Altmark, like
Lunenburg, was originally a _Cis_-Albian Slavonic locality.
s. 50. South of the Hevel we meet with the _Sorabian_, or _Sorb_
Slavonians, the descendants of whom form at the present time part of the
population of Lusatia and Silesia. It is not, however, necessary to follow
these further, since the German frontier now begins to be Thuringian rather
than Saxon.
s. 51. _Saxon area._--From the preceding investigations we determine the
area occupied by the Saxons of Germany to be nearly as follows:
_a._--_Ethnologically considered._--Tract bounded on the north by the North
Frisian Germans and Jute Danes of Sleswick; on the north and north-east by
the Slavonians of the Elbe, sometimes _Trans_-Albian like the Wagrians and
Obotrites; sometimes _Cis_-Albian, like the Linones and the Slaves of
Altmark; on the south by the Thuringians, Catti, and Franks; on the west by
the Franks, Batavians, and Frisians.
_b._ _Considered in relation to the ancient population that it {22}
comprised._--The country of the Saxons of Ptolemy; the Angli of Tacitus;
the Langobardi of Tacitus; the Angrivarii; the Dulgubini; the Ampsivarii
(?); the Bructeri Minores (?); the Fosi, and Cherusci; and probably part of
the Cauci. Of populations mentioned by the later writers (_i.e._ of those
between the seventh and eleventh centuries), the following belong to this
area--the Stormarii, Thietmarsi, Hotsati (=the Nordalbingii, or Nordleudi),
the Ostfali, (Osterluidi), Westfali, Angarii, and Eald-Seaxan (Old Saxons).
_c._ _Considered in relation to its modern population._--Here it coincides
most closely with the kingdom of Hanover, _plus_ parts of the Dutchies of
Holstein and Oldenburg, and parts of Altmark? Brunswick? and Westphalia,
and _minus_ the Frisian portion of East Friesland, and the Slavonic part of
Luneburg.
d. _River system._--By extending the Saxons of Westphalia as far as Cleves
(which has been done by competent judges) we carry the western limit to the
neighbourhood of the Rhine. This, however, is as far as it can safely be
carried. In the respect to the Upper Ems, it was probably Saxon, the lower
part being Frisian. The Weser is pre-eminently the river of the Saxons,
with the water-system of which their area coincides more closely than with
any other physical division. The Elbe was much in the same relation to the
Germans and Slavonians, as the Rhine was to the Germans and the Gauls.
Roughly speaking, it is the frontier--the _Cis_-Albian Slaves (the Linones
and the Slavonians of Altmark) being quite as numerous as the
_Trans_-Albian Germans, (the people of Stormar, Ditmarsh, and Holstein).
The Eyder was perhaps equally Danish, Frisian, and Saxon.
_e._ _Mountains._--The watershed of the Weser on the one side, and of the
Ruhr and Lippe on the other, is the chief high land _contained_ within the
Saxon area, and is noticed as being the line most likely to form a
subdivision of the Saxon population, either in the way of dialect or
political relations--_in case such a subdivision exists_, a point which
will be considered in the next chapter.
* * * * *
{23}
CHAPTER III.
OF THE DIALECTS OF THE SAXON AREA, AND OF THE SO-CALLED, OLD SAXON.
s. 52. The area occupied by the Saxons of Germany has been investigated;
and it now remains to ask, how far the language of the occupants was
absolutely identical throughout, or how far it fell into dialects or
sub-dialects. In doing this, it may as well be asked, First, what we
expect, _[`a] priori_; Second, what we really find.
s. 53. To the Saxon area in Germany, there are five philological frontiers,
the Slavonic, the Frisian, the Batavian, the Frank, and the Thuringian, to
which may probably be added the Hessian; in each of which, except the
Slavonic, we may expect that the philological phenomenon of intermixture
and transition will occur. Thus--
_a._ The Saxon of Holstein may be expected to approach the Jute and
Frisian.
_b._ That of South Oldenburg and East Friesland, the Frisian and Batavian.
_c._ That of Westphalia, the Batavian and Frank.
_d_, e. That of the Hessian and Thuringian frontiers, the Hessian and
Thuringian.
Finally, the Saxon of the centre of the area is expected to be the Saxon of
the most typical character.
s. 54. Such is what we expect. How far it was the fact is not known for
want of _data_. What is known, however, is as follows.--There were at least
_two_ divisions of the Saxon; (1st) the Saxon of which the extant specimens
are of English origin, and (2nd), the Saxon of which the extant specimens
are of continental origin. We will call these at present the Saxon of
England, and the Saxon of the Continent. {24}
s. 55. Respecting the Saxon of England and the Saxon of the Continent,
there is good reason for believing that the first was spoken in the
northern, the second in the southern portion of the Saxon area, _i.e._, the
one in Hanover and the other in Westphalia, the probable boundaries between
them being the line of highlands between Osnaburg and Paderborn.
s. 56. Respecting the Saxon of England and the Saxon of the Continent,
there is good reason for believing that, whilst the former was the
mother-tongue of the Angles and the conquerors of England, the latter was
that of the Cherusci of Arminius, the conquerors and the annihilators of
the legions of Varus.
s. 57. Respecting the Saxon of England and the Saxon of the Continent, it
is a fact that whilst we have a full literature in the former, we have but
fragmentary specimens of the latter--these being chiefly the following: (1)
the Heliand, (2) Hildubrand and Hathubrant, (3) the Carolinian Psalms.
s. 58. The preceding points have been predicated respecting the difference
between the two ascertained Saxon dialects, for the sake of preparing the
reader for the names by which they are known. Supposing the nomenclature to
be based upon any of the preceding facts, we might have the following
nomenclature:--
FOR THE SAXON OF THE CONTINENT. FOR THE SAXON OF ENGLAND.
1. Continental Saxon. Insular Saxon.
2. German Saxon. English Saxon.
3. Westphalian Saxon. Hanoverian Saxon.
4. South-Saxon. North Saxon.
5. Cheruscan Saxon. Angle Saxon.
6. Saxon of the Heliand.[4] Saxon of Beowulf.[4]
Of these names the last would be the best for strictly scientific purposes,
or for the purposes of investigation; since the fact upon which it is based
is the most undeniable.
Such is what the nomenclature might be, or, perhaps, ought to be. What it
is _is_ another question.
{25}
s. 59. The Saxon of England is called Anglo-Saxon; a term against which no
exception can be raised.
s. 60. The Saxon of the Continental _used to_ be called _Dano_-Saxon, and
_is_ called _Old_ Saxon.
s. 61. _Why called _Dano_-Saxon._--When the poem called _Heliand_ was first
discovered (and that in an English library), the difference in language
between it and the common Anglo-Saxon composition was accounted for by the
assumption of a _Danish_ intermixture.
s. 62. _Why called _Old_ Saxon._--When the Continental origin of the
_Heliand_ was recognised, the language was called _Old Saxon_, because it
represented the Saxon of the mother-country, the natives of which were
called _Old_ Saxons by the _Anglo_-Saxons themselves. Still the term is
exceptionable; the Saxon of the Heliand is most probably a _sister_-dialect
of the _Anglo_-Saxon, rather the _Anglo_-Saxon itself is a continental
locality. Exceptionable, however, as it is, it will be employed.
s. 63. The _data_ for the study of the Old Saxon are as follows:--
1. _Abrenuntiatio Diaboli, e Codice Vaticano._--Graff, Diutisca, ii. 191.
2. _Confessionis Formulae, e Codice Essensi._--Lacomblet, Archiv, fuer
Geschichte des Niederrhins, 1, 4-9.
3. _Fragmentum de Festo omnium Sanctorum, e Codice Essensi._--Ibid.
4. _Rotulus redituum Essensis._--Ibid.
5. _The Frekkenhorst Roll._--Denkmaeler von Dorow, 1, 2, 1.
6. _Glossae Saxonicae, e Codice Argentorat._--Diutisca, 192.
7. _T. Lipsii; Epist. cent. III. ad Belgas pertinentium, Ep._ 44.
8. _Hildebrand._--Heroic fragment, in alliterative metre.
9. _The Carolinian Psalms._--A translation of the Psalms, referred to the
time of Charlemagne; sometimes considered to be old Batavian.
10. _Heliand_, a Gospel Harmony in alliterative metre, and the chief _Old_
Saxon composition extant. {26}
SPECIMEN.
s. 64. _Heliand_, pp. 12, 13. (_Schmeller's Edition._)
LUC. II. 8-13.
Tho uuard managun cud, Then it was to many known,
Obar thesa uuidon uuerold. Over this wide world.
Uuardos antfundun, The words they discovered,
Thea thar ehuscalcos Those that there, as horse-grooms,
Uta uuarun, Were without,
Uueros an uuahtu, Men at watch,
Uuiggeo gomean, Horses to tend,
Fehas aftar felda: Cattle on the field--
Gisahun finistri an tuue They saw the darkness in two
Telatan an lufte; Dissipated in the atmosphere,
Endi quam lioht Godes, And came a light of God
Uuanum thurh thui uuolcan; --through the welkin;
Endi thea uuardos thar And the words there
Bifeng an them felda. Caught on the field.
Sie uurdun an forhtun tho, They were in fright then
Thea man an ira moda; The men in their mood--
Gisahun thar mahtigna They saw there mighty
Godes Engil cuman; Angel of God come;
The im tegegnes sprac. That to them face to face spake.
Het that im thea uuardos-- It bade them these words--
"Uuiht ne antdredin "Dread not a whit
Ledes fon them liohta. Of mischief from the light.
Ic scal eu quad he liobora thing, I shall to you speak glad things,
Suido uuarlico Very true;
Uuilleon seggean, Say commands;
Cudean craft mikil. Show great strength.
Nu is Krist geboran, Now is Christ born,
An thesero selbun naht, In this self-same night;
Salig barn Godes, The blessed child of God,
An thera Davides burg, In David's city,
Drohtin the godo. The Lord the good.
That is mendislo That is exultation
Manno cunneas, To the races of men,
Allaro firiho fruma. Of all men the advancement.
Thar gi ina fidan mugun, There ye may find him
An Bethlema burg, In the city of Bethlehem,
Barno rikiost. The noblest of children--
Hebbiath that te tecna, Ye have as a token
{27}
That ic eu gitellean mag, That I tell ye
Uuarun uuordun, True words,
That he thar biuundan ligid, That he there swathed lieth,
That kind an enera cribbiun, The child in a crib,
Tho he si cuning obar al Though he be King over all
Erdun endi himiles, Earth and Heaven,
Endi obar eldeo barn, And over the sons of men,
Uueroldes uualdand." Of the world the Ruler."
Reht so he tho that uuord gespracenun Right as he that word spake,
So uuard thar engilo te them So was there of Angels to them,
Unrim cuman, In a multitude, come
Helag heriskepi, A holy host,
Fon hebanuuanga, From the Heaven-plains,
Fagar folc Godes, The fair folk of God,
Endi filu sprakun, And much they spake
Lofuuord manag, Praise-words many,
Liudeo herron; _To_ the Lord of Hosts (people).
Athobun tho helagna sang, They raised the holy song,
Tho sie eft te hebanuuanga As they back to the Heaven-plains
Uundun thurh thin uuolcan. Wound through the welkin.
Thea uuardos hordun, The words they heard,
Huo thin engilo craft How the strength of the Angels
Alomahtigna God, The Almighty God,
Suido uuerdlico, Very worthily,
Uuordun louodun. With words praised.
"Diurida si nu," quadun sie, "Love be there now," quoth they,
"Drohtine selbun, "To the Lord himself
An them hohoston On the highest
Himilo rikea; Kingdom of Heaven,
Endi fridu an erdu, And peace on earth
Firiho barnum, To the children of men,
Goduuilligun gumun, Goodwilled men
Them the God antkennead, Who know God,
Thurh hluttran hugi." Through a pure mind."
* * * * *
{28}
CHAPTER IV.
AFFINITIES OF THE ENGLISH WITH THE LANGUAGES OF GERMANY AND SCANDINAVIA.
s. 65. The last chapter has limited the Anglo-Saxon area to the northern
part of the Saxon area in general. Further details, however, upon this
point, may stand over until the _general_ affinities of the English
language have been considered.
s. 66. Over and above those languages of Germany and Holland which were
akin to the dialects of the Angles and the Saxons, cognate languages were
spoken in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, and the Feroe isles, _i.e._, in
Scandinavia.
s. 67. The general collective designation for the Germanic tongues of
Germany and Holland, and for the Scandinavian languages of Denmark, Sweden,
Norway, Iceland, and the Feroe Isles, is taken from the name of those
German tribes who, during the decline of the Roman Empire, were best known
to the Romans as the _Goths_; the term _Gothic_ for the Scandinavian and
Germanic languages, collectively, being both current and convenient.
s. 68. Of this great _stock_ of languages the Scandinavian is one _branch_;
the Germanic, called also Teutonic, another.
s. 69. The Scandinavian branch of the Gothic stock comprehends, 1. The
dialects of Scandinavia Proper, _i.e._, of Norway and Sweden; 2. of the
Danish isles and Jutland; 3. of Iceland; 4. of the Feroe Isles. On the side
of Lapland the languages of this branch come in contact with the Laplandic
and Finlandic; whilst in Sleswick they are bounded by the Low German. {29}
SPECIMENS.
_Icelandic_ (Fareyinga-Saga--Ed. Mohnike).
Ok n['u] er that eitthvert sinn um sumarit, at Sigmundr maelti til
th['o]ris: "Hvat mun verdha, tho at vidh farim ['i] sk['o]g thenna, er
h[`e]r er nordhr fr['a] gardhi?" th['o]rir svarar: "['a] thv['i] er
m[`e]r eingi forvitni," segir hann. "Ekki er m[`e]r sv[^a] gefit,"
segir Sigmundr, "ok th['a]ngat skal ek fara." "th['u] munt r['a]dha
hlj['o]ta," segir th[^u]rir, "en brj['o]tum vidh tha bodhordh f['o]stra
m['i]ns." Nu f['o]ru their, ok hafdhi Sigmundr vidharoexi eina i hendi
s[`e]r; koma i sk['o]ginn, ok ['i] rj[^o]dhr eitt fagurt; ok er their
hafa thar eigi leingi verit, th['a] heyra their bjoern mikinn hardhla
ok grimligan. that var vidhbjoern mikill, ['u]lfgr['a]r at lit. their
hlaupa nu aptra ['a] stiginn than, er their hoeldhu th['a]ngat farit;
stigrinn var mj['o]r ok thraurigr, ok hleypr th['o]rir fyrir, en
Sigmundr s['i]dhar. D['y]rit bleypr n['u] eptir theim ['a] stiginn, ok
verdhr thv['i] thraungr stigrinn, ok brotna eikrnar fyrir thvi.
Sigmundr snyr th['a] skj['o]tt ['u]t af stignum millum trj['a]nna, ok
bidhr thar til er dyrit kemr jafn-fram honum. tha hoeggr hann jafnt
medhal hlusta ['a] d[^y]rinu medh tveim hoendum, sv[^a] at exin soekkr.
En d[^y]rit fellr ['a]fram, ok er dautt.
_Feroic._
N['u] vaer so til ajna Ferina um Summari, at Sigmundur snakkaji so vi
Towra: "Kvat man bagga, towat v[`i]d faerin uj henda Skowin, uj [`e]r
h[`e]r noran-firi Gaerin?" Towrur svaerar, "Ikkji haevi e Hu at
forvitnast ettir tuj," s[`i]ir han. "Ikkji eri e so sintur," s[`i]ir
Sigmundur, "og haear skael e fara." "T[`u] fert t[oa] at r[oa]a,"
s[`i]ir Towrur, "men t[oa] browtum vid Forbo Fostirfaejir mujns." N[`u]
fowru tajr, og Sigmundur heji ajna oeksi til Brennuv[`i] uj Hondini;
tajr koma in uj Skowin, og [oa] ajt vaekurt rudda Plos men ikkji haeva
tajr veri haer l['a]jngji, firin tajr hojra kvoedtt Brak uj Skownun, og
br[oa]t ettir sujgja tajr ajna egvulia stowra Bjoedn og gruiska. Tae
vae ajn stowr Skowbjoedn gr[oa]gulmut [oa] Litinun. Tair lejpa n[`u]
attir [oa] R[oa]sina, sum tajr hoeddu gingji ettir; R[oa]sin vaer
mj[oa]v og trong; Towrur lejpur undan, og Sigmundur attan[oa]. Djowri
leipur n[`u] ettir tajmum [oa] R[oa]sini; og n[`u] verur R[oa]sin trong
kj[oa] tuj, so at Ajkjinar brotnavu fr[oa] tuj. Sigmundur snujur t[oa]
kvikliani ['u]taef R[oa]sini inimidlum Trjini, og bujar haer til Djowri
kjemur abajnt han. T[oa] hoeggur han bajnt uj Ojrnalystri [oa]
Djowrinum vi b[oa]vun Hondun, so at oexin soekkur in, og Djowri dettir
bajnt framettir, og er standejt.
_Swedish._
Och nu var det eng[oa]ng on sommaren, som Sigmund sade till Thorer:
"Hvad m[oa]nde vael deraf warda, om vi [oa]ter g[oa] ut i skogen, som
ligger der norr on g[oa]rden?" "Det aer jag alldeles icke nyfiken att
veta," svarade Thor. "Icke g[oa]r det s[oa] med mig," sade Sigmund,
"och ditret maeste jag." "Du kommer d[oa] att r[oa]da," sade Thor, "men
dermed oefvertraeda vi v[oa]r {30} Fosterfaders bud." De gingo nu
[oa]stad, och Sigmund bade en vedyxa i handen; de kommo in i skogen,
och strat derp[oa] fingo de se en ganska stor och vildsinnt bjoern, en
dr[oa]pelig skogsbjoern, varg-gr[oa] till faergen. De sprungo d[oa]
tillbaka p[oa] samma stig som de hade kommit dit. Stigen var smal och
tr[oa]ng; och Thorer sprang fr[oa]mst, men Sigmund efterst. Djuret lopp
nu efter dem p[oa] stigen, och stigen blef tr[oa]ng foer detsamma,
s[oa] att traeden soenderbroetos i dess lopp. Sigmund vaende d[oa]
kurtigt retaf fr[oa]n stigen, och staellde sig mellan traeden, samt
stod der, tills djuret kom fram midt foer honom. D[oa] fattade han yxan
med begge haenderna, och hoegg midt emellan oeronen p[oa] djuret, s[oa]
att yxan gick in, och djuret stoertade fram[oa]t, och dog p[oa]
staellet.
_Danish._
Og nu var det engang om Sommeren, at Sigmund sagde til Thorer: "Hvad
mon der vel kan flyde af, om vi end gaae hen i den Skov, som ligger her
nordenfor Gaarden?" "Det er jeg ikken nysgjerrig efter at vide,"
svarede Thorer. "Ei gaar det mig saa," sagde Sigmund, "og derud maa
jeg." "Du kommer da til at raade," sagde Thorer, "men da overtraede, vi
vor Fosterfaders Bud." De gik nu, og Sigmund havde en Vedoexe i
Haanden; de kom ind i Skoven, og strax derpaa saae de en meget stor og
grum Bjoern, en drabelig Skovejoern, ulvegraa af Farve. De loeb da
tilbage ad den samme Sti, ad hvilken de vare komne derhen. Stien var
smal og trang; og Thorer loeb forrest, men Sigmund bagerst. Dyret loeb
nu efter dem paa Stien, og Stien blev trang for det, og Traeerne
broedes i dets. Loeb Sigmund dreiede da nu hurtig ud af Stien, og
stillede sig imellem Traeerne, og stod der indtil Dyret kom frem lige
for ham. Da fattede han oexen med begge Haender, og hug lige imellem
oererne paa Dyret, saa at oexen sank i, og Dyret styrtede fremad, og
var doedt paa Stedet.
_English._
And now is it a time about the summer, that Sigmund spake to Thorir:
"What would become, even if we two go into the wood (shaw), which here
is north from the house?" Thorir answers, "Thereto there is to me no
curiosity," says he. "So is it not with me," says Sigmund, "and thither
shall I go." "Thou mayst counsel," says Thorir, "but we two break the
bidding-word of foster-father mine." Now go they, and Sigmund had a
wood-axe in his hands; they come into the wood, and into a fair place;
and as they had not been there long, they hear a bear, big, fierce, and
grim. It was a wood-bear, big, wolf-grey in hue. They run (leap) now
back (after) to the path, by which they had gone thither. The path was
narrow and strait; and Thorir runs first, and Sigmund after. The beast
runs now after them on the path, and the path becomes strait, and
broken oaks before it. Sigmund turns then short out of the path among
the trees, and bides there till the beast comes even with him. Then
cuts he even in between {31} the ears of the beast with his two hands,
so that the axe sinks, and the beast falls forward, and is dead.
s. 70. The Teutonic branch falls into three divisions:--
1. The Moeso-Gothic.
2. The High Germanic.
3. The Low Germanic.
s. 71. It is in the Moeso-Gothic that the most ancient specimen of any
Gothic tongue has been preserved. It is also the Moeso-Gothic that was
spoken by the conquerors of ancient Rome; by the subjects of Hermanic,
Alaric, Theodoric, Genseric (?), Euric, Athanaric, and Totila.
This history of this language, and the meaning of the term by which it is
designated, is best explained by the following passages:--
_a._ A.D. 482. "Trocondo et Severino consulibus--Theodoricus cognomento
Valamer utramque Macedoniam, Thessaliamque depopulatus est, Larissam quoque
metropolim depredatus, Fausto solo consule (A.D. 485)--Idem Theodoricus rex
Gothorum Zenonis Augusti munificentia pene pacatus, magisterque praesentis
militiae factus, consul quoque designatus, _creditam sibi Ripensis Daciae
partem_ Moesiaeque _inferioris, cum suis satellitibus pro tempore
tenuit_."--Marcellini Comitis Chronicon, D.N.
_b._ "Frederichus ad Theodoricum regem, qui tunc apud Novam Civitatem
provinciae Moesiae morabatur, profectus est."--Vita S. Severini, D.N.
_c._ "Zeno misit ad Civitatem Novam, in qu[^a] erat Theodoricus dux
Gothorum, filius Valameris, et eum invitavit in solatium sibi adversus
Basiliscum."--Anon. Valesii, p. 663, D.N.
d. _Civitas Nova_ is Nicopolis on the Danube; and the nation thus spoken of
is the Gothic nation in the time of Zeno. At this time they are settled in
the Lower Moesia, or Bulgaria.
How they got here from the _northern_ side of the Danube we find in the
history of the reign of Valens. When pressed by intestine wars, and by the
movements of the Huns, they were assisted by that emperor, and settled in
the parts in question. {32}
Furthermore, they were converted to Christianity; and the Bible was
translated into their language by their Bishop Ulphilas.
Fragments of this translation, chiefly from the Gospels, have come down to
the present time; and the Bible translation of the Arian Bishop Ulphilas,
in the language of the Goths of Moesia, during the reign of Valens,
exhibits the earliest sample of any Gothic tongue.
s. 72. How Gothic tribes reached the Lower Danube is a point upon which
there is a variety of opinion. The following facts, however, may serve as
the basis of our reasoning.
A.D. 249-251--The Goths are found about equidistant from the Euxine Sea,
and the eastern portion of the range of Mount Haemus, in the Lower Moesia,
and at Marcianopolis. Here they gain a great battle against the Romans, in
which the Emperor Decius is killed.
His successor, Gallus, purchases a peace.
Valerian defends himself against them.
During the reign of Gallienus they appear as _maritime_ warriors, and
ravage Asia Minor, Greece, and Illyria.
A.D. 269--Are conquered at Naissus, on the western boundary of Moesia
_Superior_ by Claudius.
A.D. 282--Are defeated by Carus.
A.D. 321--Ravage Moesia (Inferior?) and Thrace.
A.D. 336--Attacked by Constantine in Dacia--_north_ of the Danube.
A.D. 373--In the reign of Valens (as already stated), they were admitted to
settle within the limits of the empire.
s. 73. Now, although all this explains, how a Gothic language was spoken in
Bulgaria, and how remnants of it have been preserved until the nineteenth
century, the manner in which the tribe who spoke it reached Marcianopolis,
so as to conquer the Emperor Decius, in A.D. 249, is unexplained.
Concerning this there are three opinions--
_A._ _The Baltic doctrine._ According to this the Goths migrated from the
Baltic to the Maeotis, from the Maeotis to the Euxine, and from the Euxine
to the Danube, along which river they moved from _east to west_. {33}
_B._ _The Getic doctrine._--Here the Goths are made out to be the
aborigines of the Lower Danube, of Dacia, Moesia, and even Thrace; in which
case their movement was, also, from _east to west_.
_C._ _The German doctrine._--Here the migration is from west to east, along
the course of the Danube, from some part of south-eastern Germany, as its
starting-point, to Asia Minor as its extreme point, and to Bulgaria
(_Moesia Inferior_) as its point of settlement.
s. 74. Respecting the first of these views the most that can be said in its
favour is, that it is laid down by Jornandes, who wrote in the fifth
century, and founded his history upon the earlier writings of Ablavius and
Dexippus, Gothic historians, who, in their turn took their account from the
old legends of the Goths themselves--_in priscis eorum carminibus, paene
historico ritu_. On the other hand, the evidence is, at best, traditional,
the fact improbable, and the likelihood of some such genealogy being
concocted after the relationship between the Goths of the Euxine, and
Germans of the Baltic had been ascertained exceedingly great.
s. 75. The second is supported by no less an authority than Grimm, in his
latest work, the History of the German Language;--and the fact of so
learned and comprehensive an investigator having admitted it, is, in the
mind of the present writer, the only circumstance in its favour. Over and
above the arguments that may be founded on a fact which will soon be
noticed, the chief reasons are deduced from a list of Dacian or Getic
plants in Dioscorides, which are considered to bear names significant in
the German. Whether or not, the details of this line of criticism will
satisfy the reader who refers to them, it is certain that they are not
likely to take a more cogent form than they take in the hands of the
_Deutsche Grammatik_.
s. 76. The third opinion is the likeliest; and if it were not for a single
difficulty would, probably, never have been demurred to. The fact in
question is the similarity between the words _Getae_ and _Gothi_.
The fact that a tribe called G-O-T-H-I should, when they first peopled the
Moesogothic country, have hit upon the {34} country of a people with a name
so like their own as G-E-T-AE, by mere accident, is strange. English or
American colonies might be sent to some thousand places before one would be
found with a name so like that of the mother-country as _Get_ is to _Got_.
The chances, therefore, are that the similarity of name is _not_
accidental, but that there is some historical, ethnological, or
geographical grounds to account for it. Grimm's view has been noticed. He
recognises the difficulty, and accounts for it by making the _Goths_
indigenous to the land of Getae.
To a writer who (at one and the same time) finds difficulty in believing
that this similarity is accidental and is dissatisfied with Grimm's
reasoning, there seems to be no other alternative but to consider that the
Goths of the Lower Danube had no existence at all in Germany _under that
name_, that they left their country under a different[5] one, and that they
took the one by which they were known to the Romans (and through them to
us), on reaching the land of the _Getae_--as, in England, the Saxons of
_Essex_ and _Wessex_ did _not_ (since they brought their name with them),
but as the East and West _Kent-ings_[6] did.
This doctrine, of course, falls to the ground directly it can be shown that
the Goths of Moesia were either called _Goths_ in Germany, or any where
else, anterior to their settlement in the _Geta_-land.
Be this, however, as it may, the first division of the Teutonic branch of
languages is the Moeso-Gothic of the Goths of the Lower Danube, in the
fourth century, as preserved in the translation of Ulphilas, and in other
less important fragments.
SPECIMEN.
LUKE i. 46-56.
Jah quath Mariam. Mikileid saivala meina Fan, jah svegneid ahma meins
du Gotha nasjand meinamma. Unte insahu du hnaivenai thiujos seinaizos:
{35} sai allis fram himma nu audagjand mik alla kunja. Unte gatavida
mis mikilein sa mahteiga, jah veih namo is. Jah armahairtei is in
aldins ald[^e] thaim ogandam ina. Gatavida svinthein in arma seinamma;
distahida mikilthuhtans gahugdai hairtins seinis; gadrausida mahteigans
af stolam, jah ushauhida gahnaividans; gredigans gas[^o]thida thiuthe,
jah gabignandans insandida lausans; hleibida Israela thiumagu seinamma,
gamundans armahairteins, sva sve rodida du attam unsaraim Abrahaima jah
fraiv is und aiv.
s. 77. The Old High German, called also Francic and Alemannic, was spoken
in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries, in Suabia, Bavaria, and
Franconia. It is in the Old High German that the Krist of Otfrid, the
Psalms of Notker, the Canticle of Willeram, the Glosses of Kero, the Vita
Annonis, &c., are composed.
SPECIMEN.
KRIST, i. 12. (Edit. Graff.)
Tho uuarun thar in lante hirta haltente;
Thes fehes datun uuarta uuidar fianta.
Zi ['i]n quam boto sconi, engil scinenti;
Joh uuurtun sie inliuhte fon himilisgen liohte.
Forahtun sie in tho gahun so sinan anasahun;
Joh hintarquamun harto thes Gotes boten uuorto.
Sprah ther Gotes boto sar. "Ih scal ['i]['u] sagen uuuntar.
Ju scal sin fon Gote heil; nales forahta nihein.
Ih scal iu sagen imbot, gibot ther himilisgo Got;
Ouh nist ther er gihorti so fronisg arunti.
Thes uuirdit uuorolt sinu zi euuidon blidu,
Joh al giscaft thiu in uuorolti thesa erdun ist ouh dretenti
Niuuui boran habet thiz lant then himilisgon Heilant;
The ist Druhtin Krist guater fon iungeru muater.
In Bethleem thiue kuninga thie uuarun alle thanana,
Fon in uuard ouh giboran iu sin muater magad sconu.
Sagen ih ['i]['u], guate man, uuio ir nan sculut findan,
Zeichen ouh gizami thuruh thaz seltsani.
Zi theru burgi faret hinana, ir findet, so ih ['i]['u] sageta,
Kind niuuui boranaz in kripphun gilegitaz.
Tho quam unz er zin tho sprah engilo heriscaf,
Himilisgu menigi, sus alle singenti--
In himilriches hohi si Gote guallichi;
Si in erdu fridu ouh allen thie fol sin guates uuillen
{36}
_The Same, in English._
Then there was in the land herdsmen feeding:
Of their cattle they made watch against foes.
To them came a messenger fair, an angel shining,
And they became lit with heavenly light.
They feared, suddenly as on him they looked;
And followed much the words of God's messenger:
Spake there God's messenger strait, "I shall to you say wonders.
To you shall there be from God health; fear nothing at all.
I shall to you say a message, the bidding of the heavenly God:
Also there is none who has heard so glad an errand.
Therefore becomes his world for ever blythe,
And all creatures that in the world are treading this earth.
Newly borne has this land the heavenly Savior,
Who is the Lord Christ, good, from a young mother.
In Bethleem, of the kings they were all thence--
From them was also born his mother, a maid fair.
I say to you, good men, how ye him shall find,
A sign and token, through this wonder.
To your burgh fare hence, ye find, so as I to you said,
A child, new born, in a crib lying."
Then came, while he to them spake, of angels an host,
A heavenly retinue, thus all singing:
"In the heavenly kingdom's highth be to God glory;
Be on earth peace also to all who are full of God's will."
The Middle High German ranges from the thirteenth Century to the
Reformation.
s. 78. The Low Germanic Division, to which the Anglo-Saxon belongs, is
currently said to comprise six languages, or rather four languages in
different stages.
I. II.--The Anglo-Saxon and Modern English.
III.--The Old Saxon.
IV. V.--The Old Frisian and Modern Dutch.
VI.--The Platt-Deutsch, or Low German.
s. 79. _The Frisian and Dutch._--It is a current statement that the Old
Frisian bears the same relation to the Modern Dutch of Holland that the
Anglo-Saxon does to the English.
The truer view of the question is as follows:-- {37}
1. That a single language, spoken in two dialects, was originally common to
both Holland and Friesland.
2. That from the northern of these dialects we have the Modern Frisian of
Friesland.
3. From the southern, the Modern Dutch of Holland.
The reason for this refinement is as follows:--
The Modern Dutch has certain grammatical forms _older_ than those of the
Old Frisian; _e.g._, the Dutch infinitives and the Dutch weak substantives,
in their oblique cases, end in _-en_; those of the Old Frisian in _-a_: the
form in _-en_ being the older.
s. 80. The true Frisian is spoken in few and isolated localities. There
is--
1. The Frisian of the Dutch state called Friesland.
2. The Frisian of the parish of Saterland, in Westphalia.
3. The Frisian of Heligoland.
4. The North Frisian, spoken in a few villages of Sleswick. One of the
characters of the North Frisian is the possession of a Dual Number.
s. 81. In respect to its stages, we have the Old Frisian of the Asega-bog,
the Middle Frisian of Gysbert Japicx, and the Modern Frisian of the present
Frieslanders, Westphalians, and Heligolanders.
_Asega-bog_, i. 3. p. 13, 14. (_Ed. Wiarda._)
Thet is thiu thredde liodkest and thes Kynig Kerles ieft, theter allera
monna ek ana sina eyna gode besitte umberavat. Hit ne se thet ma hine
urwinne mith tele and mith rethe and mith riuchta thingate, sa hebbere
alsam sin Asega dema and dele to lioda londriuchte. Ther ne hach nen
Asega nenne dom to delande hit ne se thet hi to fara tha Keysere fon
Rume esweren hebbe and thet hi fon da liodon ekeren se. Sa hoch hi
thenne to demande and to delande tha fiande alsare friounde, thruch des
ethes willa, ther hi to fara tha Keysere fon Rume esweren heth, tho
demande and to delande widuon and weson, waluberon and alle werlosa
liodon, like to helpande and sine threa knilinge. Alsa thi Asega nimth
tha unriuchta mida and tha urlouada panninga, and ma hini urtinga mi
mith twam sine juenethon an thes Kyninges bonne, sa ne hoch hi nenne
dom mar to delande, truch thet thi Asega thi biteknath thene prestere,
hwande hia send siande and hia skilun wesa agon there heliga
Kerstenede, hia skilun helpa alle tham ther hiam seluon nauwet helpa ne
muge.
{38}
_The Same, in English._
That is the third determination and concession of King Charles, that of
all men each one possess his own goods (house?) unrobbed. It may not be
that any man overcome him with charge (tales), and with summons (rede),
and with legal action. So let him hold as his Asega (judge) dooms and
deals according to the land-right of the people. There shall no Asega
deal a doom unless it be that before the Caesar of Rome he shall have
sworn, and that he shall have been by the people chosen. He has then to
doom and deal to foes as to friends, through the force (will) of the
oath which he before the Caesar of Rome has sworn, to doom and to deal
to widows and orphans, to wayfarers and all defenceless people, to help
them as his own kind in the third degree. If the Asega take an illegal
reward, or pledged money, and a man convict him before two of his
colleagues in the King's Court, he has no more to doom, since it is the
Asega that betokens the priest, and they are seeing, and they should be
the eyes of the Holy Christendom, they should help all those who may
nought help themselves.
s. 82. _The Low German and Platt-Deutsch._--The words _Low German_ are not
only lax in their application, but they are _equivocal_; since the term has
two meanings, a _general_ meaning when it signifies a division of the
Germanic languages, comprising English, Dutch, Anglo-Saxon, Old Saxon, and
Frisian, and a limited one when it means the particular dialects of the
Ems, the Weser, and the Elbe. To avoid this the dialects in question will
be henceforth called by their continental name of _Platt-Deutsch_; which
although foreign, is convenient.
s. 83. The points of likeness and difference between two languages
belonging to different branches of the same Gothic stock may be partially
collected from the following comparison between certain Icelandic, Norse or
Scandinavian, and certain Anglo-Saxon or Germanic inflections.
Declension of substantives ending with a _vowel_.
_Saxon._ _Icelandic._
_Neuter._ _Neuter._
_Sing. Nom._ E['a]ge (_an eye_). Auga (_an eye_).
_Acc._ E['a]ge Auga.
_Dat._ E['a]gan Auga.
_Gen._ E['a]gan Auga.
{39}
_Plur. Nom._ E['a]gan Augu.
_Acc._ E['a]gan Augu.
_Dat._ E['a]gan Augum.
_Gen._ E['a]gan Augna.
_Masculine._ _Masculine._
_Sing. Nom._ Nama (_a name_). Bogi (_a bow_).
_Acc._ Naman Boga.
_Dat._ Naman Boga.
_Gen._ Naman Boga.
_Plur. Nom._ Naman Bogar.
_Acc._ Naman Boga.
_Dat._ Namum Bogum.
_Gen._ Namena Boga.
_Feminine._ _Feminine._
_Sing. Nom._ Tunge (_a tongue_). T['u]nga (_a tongue_).
_Acc._ Tungan T['u]ngu.
_Dat._ Tungan T['u]ngu.
_Gen._ Tungan T['u]ngu.
_Plur. Nom._ Tungan T['u]ngur.
_Acc._ Tungan T['u]ngur.
_Dat._ Tungum T['u]ngum.
_Gen._ Tungena T['u]ngna.
Declension of Substantives ending with a _Consonant_.
_Saxon._ _Icelandic._
_Neuter._ _Neuter._
_Sing. Nom._ Le['a]f (_a leaf_). Skip (_a ship_).
_Acc._ Le['a]f Skip.
_Dat._ Le['a]fe Skipi.
_Gen._ Le['a]fes Skips.
_Plur. Nom._ Le['a]f Skip.
_Acc._ Le['a]f Skip.
_Dat._ Le['a]fum Skipum.
_Gen._ Le['a]fa Skipa.
_Masculine._ _Masculine._
_Sing. Nom._ Smidh (_a smith_). Konungr (_a king_).
_Acc._ Smidh Konung.
_Dat._ Smidhe Konungi.
_Gen._ Smidhes Konungs.
{40}
_Plur. Nom._ Smidhas Konungar.
_Acc._ Smidhas Konunga.
_Dat._ Smidhum Konungum.
_Gen._ Smidha Konunga.
_Feminine._ _Feminine._
_Sing. Nom._ Spr['ae]c (_a speech_). Br['u]dhr (_a bride_).
_Acc._ Spr['ae]ce Br['u]i.
_Dat._ Spr['ae]ce Br['u]dhi.
_Gen._ Spr['ae]ce Br['u]dhar.
_Plur. Nom._ Spr['ae]ca Br['u]dhir.
_Acc._ Spr['ae]ca Br['u]dhir.
_Dat._ Spr['ae]cum Br['u]dhum.
_Gen._ Spr['ae]ca Br['u]dha.
s. 84. The most characteristic difference between the Saxon and Icelandic
lies in the peculiar position of the definite article in the latter
language. In Saxon, the article corresponding with the modern word _the_,
is _thaet_, _se_, _se['o]_, for the neuter, masculine, and feminine genders
respectively; and these words, regularly declined, are _prefixed_ to the
words with which they agree, just as is the case with the English and with
the majority of languages. In Icelandic, however, the article, instead of
preceding, _follows_ its noun, _with which it coalesces_, having previously
suffered a change in form. The Icelandic article corresponding to _thaet_,
_se_, _se['o]_, is _hitt_ (N.), _hinn_ (M.), _hin_ (F.): from this the _h_
is ejected, so that, instead of the regular inflection (_a_), we have the
forms (_b_).
_a._
_Neut._ _Masc._ _Fem._
_Sing. Nom._ Hitt Hinn Hin.
_Acc._ Hitt Hinn Hina.
_Dat._ Hinu Hinum Hinni.
_Gen._ Hins Hins Hinnar.
_Plur. Nom._ Hin Hinir Hinar.
_Acc._ Hin Hina Hinar.
_Dat._ Hinum Hinum Hinum.
_Gen._ Hinna Hinna Hinna.
_b._
_Sing. Nom._ --it --inn --in.
_Acc._ --it --inn --ina (-na).
{41}
_Dat._ --nu --num --inni (-nni).
_Gen._ --ins --ins --innar (-nnar).
_Plur. Nom._ --in --nir --nar.
_Acc._ --in --na --nar.
_Dat._ --num --num --num.
_Gen._ --nna --nna --nna.
whence, as an affix, in composition,
_Neut._ _Masc._ _Fem._
_Sing. Nom._ Augat Boginn T['u]ngan.
_Acc._ Augat Boginn T['u]nguna.
_Dat._ Auganu Boganum T['u]ngunni.
_Gen._ Augans Bogans T['u]ngunnar.
_Plur. Nom._ Augun Bogarnir T['u]ngurnar.
_Acc._ Augun Bogana T['u]ngurnar.
_Dat._ Augunum Bogunum T['u]ngunum.
_Gen._ Augnanna Boganna T['u]ngnanna.
s. 85. In the Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish this peculiarity in the
position of the definite article is preserved. Its origin, however, is
concealed; and an accidental identity with the indefinite article has led
to false notions respecting its nature. In the languages in point the _i_
is changed into _e_, so that what in Icelandic is _it_ and _in_, is in
Danish _et_ and _en_. _En_, however, as a separate word, is the numeral
_one_, and also the indefinite article _a_; whilst in the neuter gender it
is _et_--en Sol, _a sun_; et Bord, _a table_: Solen, _the sun_; Bordet,
_the table_. From modern forms like those just quoted, it has been imagined
that the definite is merely the indefinite article transposed. This it is
not.
Reference will be made to this passage on more occasions than one, to show
how words originally distinct may, in the process of time, take the
appearance of being identical. To apply an expression of Mr. Cobbett's,
_en_=_a_, and _-en_=_the_, are _the same combination of letters, but not
the same word_. {42}
DECLENSION OF ADJECTIVES.
_Saxon_. _Icelandic_.
_Definite_.[7] _Definite_.[7]
_Singular_. _Singular_.
_Neut_. _Masc_. _Fem_. _Neut_. _Masc_. _Fem_.
_Nom_. G['o]de G['o]da G['o]de. _Nom_. Haga Hagi Haga.
_Acc_. G['o]de G['o]dan G['o]dan. _Acc_. Haga Haga Hoegu.
_Abl_. G['o]dan G['o]dan G['o]dan. _Abl_. Haga Haga Hoegu.
_Dat_. G['o]dan G['o]dan G['o]dan. _Dat_. Haga Haga Hoegu.
_Gen_. G['o]dan G['o]dan G['o]dan. _Gen_. Haga Haga Hoegu.
_Plural_.
_Hoegu_ is the Plural form for all
_Nom_. G['o]dan G['o]dan G['o]dan. the Cases and all the Genders.
_Acc_. G['o]dan G['o]dan G['o]dan.
_Abl_. G['o]dum G['o]dum G['o]dum.
_Dat_. G['o]dum G['o]dum G['o]dum.
_Gen_. G['o]dena G['o]dena G['o]dena.
_Indefinite_. _Indefinite_.
_Singular_. _Singular_.
_Neut_. _Masc_. _Fem_. _Neut_. _Masc_. _Fem_.
_Nom_. G['o]d G['o]d G['o]d. _Nom_. Hagt Hagr Hoeg.
_Acc_. G['o]d G['o]dne G['o]de. _Acc_. Hagt Hagan Hoeg.
_Abl_. G['o]de G['o]de G['o]dre. _Abl_. Hoegu Hoegum Hagri.
_Dat_. G['o]dum G['o]dum G['o]dre. _Dat_. Hoegu Hoegum Hagri.
_Gen_. G['o]des G['o]des G['o]dre. _Gen_. Hags Hags Hagrar.
_Plural_. _Plural_.
_Nom_. G['o]de G['o]de G['o]de. _Nom_. Hoeg Hagir Hagar.
_Acc_. G['o]de G['o]de G['o]de. _Acc_. Hoeg Haga Hagar.
_Abl_. G['o]dum G['o]dum G['o]dum. _Abl_. Hoegum Hoegum Hoegum.
_Dat_. G['o]dum G['o]dum G['o]dum. _Dat_. Hoegum Hoegum Hoegum.
_Gen_. G['o]dra G['o]dra G['o]dra. _Gen_. Hagra Hagra Hagra.
s. 86. Observe in the Icelandic forms the absence of the termination _-an_.
Observe also the neuter termination _-t_, as _hagr_, _hagt_. Throughout the
modern forms of the Icelandic (_viz._ the Swedish, Danish, and Norwegian
languages) this termination is still preserved: e.g., _en god Hest_, a good
horse; _et godt Hjaert_, a good heart; _en skoen Pige_, a beautiful damsel;
_et skarpt Svoerd_, a sharp sword.
{43}
s. 87. Amongst the pronouns the following differences present themselves.
The Saxon forms are, for the pronoun of the second person, _thu_ (thou),
_git_ (ye _two_), _ge_ (ye); whilst in Icelandic they are _thu_, _thidh_,
_per_, respectively. Again, in Saxon there is no reflective pronoun
corresponding with the Latin _se_. In Icelandic we have _sik_, _s['e]r_,
_sin_, corresponding to the Latin _se_, _sibi_, _suus_. Besides this, the
word _sin_ is declined, so that like the Latin _suus_ it becomes
adjectival.
_Sing. Nom._ Sitt Sinn S['i]n.
_Acc._ Sitt Sinn S['i]na.
_Dat._ S['i]nu S['i]num Sinni.
_Gen._ Sins Sins Sinnar.
_Plur. Nom._ S['i]n S['i]nir S['i]nar.
_Acc._ S['i]n S['i]na S['i]nar.
_Dat._ S['i]num S['i]num S['i]num.
_Gen._ Sinna Sinna Sinna.
In Saxon there is of course no such an adjectival form. _There_ the
Possessives of the Third Person correspond not with the Latin _suus_,
_sua_, _suum_; but with the Latin _ejus_ and _eorum_. The English words
_his_ and _her_ are _genitive_ cases, not _adjectives_.
Further remarks upon the presence of the Reflective Pronoun _sik_ in
Icelandic, and its absence in Saxon, will appear in the sequel.
THE NUMERALS.
_Saxon._ _Icelandic._
1. ['A]n Eitt, einn, ein.
2. Tw['a] Tvoe, tveir.
3. Thre['o] Thrju, thrir.
4. Feower Fjoegur, fj['o]rir.
5. F['i]f Fimm.
6. Six Sex.
7. Seofon Sjoe.
8. Eahta ['A]tta.
9. Nigon Niu.
10. Tyn Tiu.
Of the Icelandic verbs the infinitives end in _-a_; as _kalla_, to call;
_elska_, to love; whereas the Saxon termination is _-an_; as _lufian_, to
love; _wyrcan_, to work. {44}
s. 88. The persons are as follows:--
_Saxon._ _Icelandic._
_Pres. Sing._ 1. Baerne Brenni.
2. Baernst Brennir.
3. Baerndh Brennir.
_Plur._ 1. Baernadh Brennum.
2. Baernadh Brennidh.
3. Baernadh Brenna.
s. 89. The characteristic, however, of the Icelandic (indeed, of all the
Scandinavian languages) is the possession of a _passive_ form, or a
_passive_ voice, ending in _-st_:--_Ek_, _thu_, _hann brennist_=_I_,
_thou_, _he is burnt_; _Ver brennumst_=_We are burnt_; _th['e]r
brennizt_=_ye are burnt_; _their brennast_=_they are burnt_. Past tense,
_Ek_, _thu_, _hann brendist_; _ver brendumst_, _th['e]r brenduzt_, _their
brendust_. Imperat.: _brenstu_=_be thou burnt_. Infinit.: _brennast_=_to be
burnt_.
In the modern Danish and Swedish, the passive is still preserved, but
without the final _t_. In the _older_ stages of Icelandic, on the other
hand, the termination was not _-st_ but _-sc_; which _-sc_ grew out of the
reflective pronoun _sik_. With these phenomena the Scandinavian languages
give us the evolution and development of a passive voice; wherein we have
the following series of changes:--1st. the reflective pronoun coalesces
with the verb, whilst the sense changes from that of a reflective to that
of a middle verb; 2nd. the _c_ changes to _t_, whilst the middle sense
passes into a passive one; 3rd. _t_ is dropped from the end of the word,
and the expression that was once reflective then becomes strictly passive.
Now the Saxons have no passive voice at all. That they should have one
_originating_ like that of the Scandinavians was impossible. Having no
reflective pronoun, they had nothing to evolve it from.
_The Auxiliary Verb._
_Saxon._ _Icelandic._
_Indicative. Present._
_Sing._ 1. Eom (_I am_) Em.
2. Eart. Ert.
3. Is. Er.
{45}
_Plur._ 1. Synd (Syndon) Erum.
2. Synd (Syndon) Erudh.
3. Synd (Syndon) Eru.
_Indicative. Past._
_Sing._ 1. W['ae]s Var.
2. W['ae]re Vart.
3. W['ae]s Var.
_Plur._ 1. W['ae]ron Vorum.
2. W['ae]ron Voru.
3. W['ae]ron Voru.
_Subjunctive. Present._
_Sing._ 1. S['y] S['e].
2. S['y] S['e]r.
3. S['y] S['e].
_Plur._ 1. S['y]n S['e]um.
2. S['y]n Seudh.
3. S['y]n S['e]u.
_Subjunctive. Past._
_Sing._ 1. W['ae]re Vaeri.
2. W['ae]re Vaerir.
3. W['ae]re Vaeri.
_Plur._ 1. W['ae]ron Vaerum.
2. W['ae]ron Vaeru.
3. W['ae]ron Vaerudh.
_Infinitive._
Wesan Vera.
_Participle._
Wesende Verandi.
s. 90. Recapitulating, we find that the characteristic differences of the
greatest importance between the Icelandic and Saxon are three in number:--
1st. The peculiar nature of the definite article.
2nd. The neuter form of the adjectives in _-t_.
3rd. The existence of a passive voice in _-sc_, _-st_, or _-s_.
s. 91. In the previous comparison the substantives were divided as
follows:--1st. into those ending with a vowel; 2ndly, into those ending
with a consonant. In respect to the substantives ending with a vowel
(_e['a]ge_, _nama_, _tunge_), it may have been observed that their cases
were in A. S. almost {46} exclusively formed in _-n_, as _e['a]gan_,
_tungan_, &c.; whilst words like _skip_ and _smidh_ had, throughout their
whole declension, no case formed in _-n_; no case indeed wherein the sound
of _-n_ entered. This enables us (at least with the A. S.) to make a
general assertion concerning the substantives ending in a _vowel_ in
contrast to those ending in a _consonant_, viz. that they take an
inflection in _-n_.
In Icelandic this inflection in _-n_ is concealed by the fact of _-an_
having been changed into _-a_. However, as this _-a_ represents _-an_, and
as fragments or rudiments of _-n_ are found in the genitive plurals of the
neuter and feminine genders (_augna_, _tungna_), we may make the same
general assertion in Icelandic that we make in A. S., _viz._ that
substantives ending in a vowel take an inflection in _-n_.
s. 92. The points of likeness and difference between two languages,
belonging to different _divisions_ of the same Germanic _branch_, may be
partially collected from the following comparison between certain
Moeso-Gothic and certain Anglo-Saxon inflections.
s. 93. It must, however, be premised, that, although the distinction
between nouns taking an inflection in _-n_, and nouns not so inflected,
exists equally in the Moeso-Gothic and the Icelandic, the form in which the
difference shows itself is different; and along with the indication of this
difference may be introduced the important terms _weak_ and _strong_, as
applied to the declension of nouns.
_Weak_ nouns end in a vowel; or, if in a consonant, in a consonant that has
become final from the loss of the vowel that originally followed it. They
also form a certain proportion of their oblique cases in _-n_, or an
equivalent to _-n_--Nom. _aug[^o]_, gen. _aug-in-s_.
_Strong_ nouns end in a consonant; or, if in a vowel, in one of the vowels
allied to the semivowels _y_ or _w_, and through them to the consonants.
They also form their oblique cases by the addition of a simple inflection,
without the insertion of _n_.
Furthermore, be it observed that _nouns_ in general are _weak_ and
_strong_, in other words, that adjectives are _weak_ or {47} _strong_, as
well as substantives. Between substantives and adjectives, however, there
is this difference:--
1. A substantive is _either_ weak or strong, _i.e._, it has one of the two
inflections, but not both. _Aug[^o]_=_an eye_, is weak under all
circumstances; _waurd_=_a word_, is strong under all circumstances.
2. An adjective is _both_ weak and strong. The Anglo-Saxon for _good_ is
sometimes _god_ (strong), sometimes _gode_ (weak). Which of the two forms
is used depends not on the word itself, but on the state of its
construction.
In this respect the following two rules are important:--
1. The definite sense is generally expressed by the weak form, as _se
blinde man_=_the blind man_.
2. The indefinite sense is generally expressed by the strong form, as _sum
blind man_=_a blind man_.
Hence, as far as adjectives are concerned, the words _definite_ and
_indefinite_ coincide with the words _weak_ and _strong_ respectively,
except that the former are terms based on the syntax, the latter terms
based on the etymology of the word to which they apply.
_Declension of Weak Substantives in Moeso-Gothic._
_Neuter._
_Singular._ _Plural._
_Nom._ ['A]ug[^o] (_an eye_) ['A]ug[^o]na.
_Acc._ ['A]ug[^o] ['A]ug[^o]na.
_Dat._ ['A]ugin ['A]ugam.
_Gen._ ['A]ugins ['A]ug[^o]n[^e].
_Masculine._
_Nom._ Manna (_a man_) Mannans.
_Acc._ Mannan Mannans.
_Dat._ Mannin Mannam.
_Gen._ Mannins Mannan[^e].
_Feminine._
_Nom._ Tugg[^o] (_a tongue_) Tugg[^o]ns.
_Acc._ Tugg[^o]n Tugg[^o]ns.
_Dat._ Tugg[^o]n Tugg[^o]m.
_Gen._ Tugg[^o]ns Tugg[^o]n[^o].
{48}
_Declension of Strong Substantives in Moeso-Gothic._
_Neuter._
_Singular._ _Plural._
_Nom._ Va['u]rd (_a word_) Va['u]rda.
_Acc._ Va['u]rd Va['u]rda.
_Dat._ Va['u]rda Va['u]rdam.
_Gen._ Va['u]rdis Va['u]rd[^e].
_Masculine._
_Nom._ Fisks (_a fish_) Fisk[^o]s.
_Acc._ Fisk Fiskans.
_Dat._ Fiska Fiskam.
_Gen._ Fiskis Fisk[^e].
_Feminine._
_Nom._ Br[^u]ths (_a bride_) Br[^u]theis.
_Acc._ Br[^u]th Br[^u]thins.
_Dat._ Br[^u]thai Br[^u]thim.
_Gen._ Br[^u]thais Br[^u]th[^e].
These may be compared with the Saxon declensions; viz. _a['u]g[^o]_ with
_e['a]ge_, _manna_ with _nama_, _tugg[^o]_ with _tunge_, _va['u]rd_ with
_le['a]f_, _fisks_ with _smidh_, and _br[^u]ths_ with _spraec_.
_Declension of Weak (or Definite) Adjectives in Moeso-Gothic._[8]
_Singular._
_Neuter._ _Masculine._ _Feminine._
_Nom._ Blind[^o] Blinda Blind[^o].
_Acc._ Blind[^o] Blindan Blind[^o]n.
_Dat._ Blindin Blindin Blind[^o]n.
_Gen._ Blindins Blindins Blind[^o]ns.
_Plural._
_Nom._ Blind[^o]na Blindans Blind[^o]ns.
_Acc._ Blind[^o]na Blindans Blind[^o]ns.
_Dat._ Blindam Blindam Blind[^o]m.
_Gen._ Blind[^o]n[^e] Blindan[^e] Blind[^o]n[^o].
{49}
_Declension of strong (or indefinite) adjectives in Moeso-Gothic._[9]
_Singular._
_Nom._ Blindata Blinds Blinda.
_Acc._ Blindata Blindana Blinda.
_Dat._ Blindamma Blindamma Blind['a]i.
_Gen._ Blindis Blindis Blind['a]iz[^o]s.
_Plural._
_Nom._ Blinda Blind['a]i Blind[^o]s.
_Acc._ Blinda Blindans Blind[^o]s.
_Dat._ Blind['a]im Blind['a]im Blind['a]im.
_Gen._ Blind['a]iz[^e] Blind['a]iz[^e] Blind['a]iz[^o].
_Observe_--In the neuter form _blindata_ M. G. we have the sound of _t_, as
in Icelandic. This becomes _z_ (_ts_) in Old High German, and _s_ in modern
German.
The conjugation of the M. G. is as follows. From the Anglo-Saxon it differs
most in its plural persons.
_Indicative._
M.G. A.S.
_Present._
_Sing._ 1. S[^o]k-ja Lufie.
2. S[^o]k-eis Lufast.
3. S[^o]k-eith Lufadh.
_Plur._ 1. S[^o]k-jam Lufiadh.
2. S[^o]k-eith Lufiadh.
3. S[^o]k-jand Lufiadh.
_Praet._
_Sing._ 1. S[^o]kida Lufode.
2. S[^o]kides Lufodest.
3. S[^o]kida Lufode.
_Plur._ 1. S[^o]kid[^e]dum Lufodon.
2. S[^o]kid[^e]duth Lufodon.
3. S[^o]kid[^e]dun Lufodon.
_Subjunctive._
M.G. A.S.
_Present._
_Sing._ 1. S[^o]kj['a]u }
2. S[^o]kj['a]is } Lufige.
3. S[^o]kj['a]i }
_Plur._ 1. S[^o]kj['a]ima }
2. S[^o]kj['a]ith } Lufion.
3. S[^o]kj['a]ina }
_Praet._
_Sing._ 1. S[^o]kid[^e]dj['a]u }
2. S[^o]kid[^e]deis } Lufode.
3. S[^o]kid[^e]di }
_Plur._ 1. S[^o]kid[^e]deima }
2. S[^o]kid[^e]deith } Lufodon
3. S[^o]kid[^e]deina }
The conjugation of the auxiliary verb in Moeso-Gothic is as follows. It may
be compared with the A. S. s. 89.
{50}
_Indicative. Pres._ _Subjunctive. Pres._
_Sing._ _Plur._ _Sing._ _Plur._
1. Im (_I am_) Sijum. 1. Sij['a]u Sij['a]ima.
2. Is Sijuth. 2. Sij['a]is Sij['a]ith.
3. Ist Sind. 3. Sij['a]i Sij['a]ina.
_Praet._ _Praet._
1. Vas V[^e]sum. 1. V[^e]sj['a]u V[^e]seima.
2. Vast V[^e]suth. 2. V[^e]seis V[^e]seith.
3. Vas V[^e]sun. 3. V[^e]sei V[^e]seina.
_Inf._ Visan and Sijan--(_to be_).
_Part._ Visands--(_being_).
s. 94. The points of likeness or difference between two languages, each of
the Low Germanic division, may be partially collected from the following
comparison between certain Old Frisian and certain Anglo-Saxon inflections.
In the comparison the first point to be noticed is the _Transition of
Letters_.
_['a]_ in Frisian corresponds to _e['a]_ in A. S.; as _d['a]d_,
_r['a]d_, _l['a]s_, _str['a]m_, _b['a]m_, _c['a]p_, _['a]re_, _h['a]p_,
Frisian; _de['a]d_, _re['a]d_, _le['a]s_, _stre['a]m_, _be['a]m_,
_ce['a]p_, _e['a]re_, _he['a]p_, Saxon; _dead_, _red_, _loose_,
_stream_, _tree_ (boom), _bargain_ (cheap, chapman), _ear_, _heap_,
English.
_['e]_ Frisian corresponds to ^a), the A. S. _['a]_; as _Eth_,
_t['e]ken_, _h['e]l_, _br['e]d_, Fris.; _['a]th_, _t['a]cen_, _h['a]l_,
_br['a]d_, Saxon; _oath_, _token_, _hale_, _broad_, English;--^b), to
A. S. _ae_; _h['e]r_, _d['e]de_, _br['e]da_, Frisian; _haer_, _daed_,
_braedan_, A. S.; _hair_, _deed_, _roast_, English.
_e_ to _ea_ and _ae_ A. S.--Frisian _thet_, A. S. _thaet_, Engl.
_that_, Fris. _gers_, A. S. _gaers_, Engl. _grass_.--Also to _eo_;
_prestere_, Fr.; _preost_ A. S., _priest_ Engl.; _berch_ Fr., _beorh_
A. S.; _hill_ (_berg_, as in _iceberg_) Engl.; _melok_ Fr., _meoloc_ A.
S., _milk_ Engl.
_i_ to _eo_ A. S.--Fr. _irthe_, A. S. _eordhe_; Fris. _hirte_; A. S.
_heorte_; Fris. _fir_ A. S. _feor_=in English _earth_, _heart_, _far_.
_j['a]_=_eo_ A. S.; as _bjada_, _be['o]dan_, _bid_--_thet fjarde_,
_feordhe_, _the fourth_--_sj['a]k_, _se['o]c_, _sick_.
_ju_=_y_ or _eo_ A. S.; _rjucht_, _ryth_, _right_--_frjund_, _freond_,
_friend_. {51}
_Dsz_=A. S. _cg_; Fr. _sedza_, _lidzja_; A. S. _secgan_, _licgan_;
Engl. _to say_, _to lie_.
_Tz_, _ts_, _sz_, _sth_=A. S. _c_ or _ce_; as _szereke_, or _sthereke_,
Frisian; _cyrice_ A. S., _church_ Engl.; _czetel_ Fr., _cytel_ A. S.,
_kettle_ English.
_ch_ Fr.=_h_ A. S., as _thjach_ Fr., _the['o]h_ A. S., _thigh_
Engl.--_berch_, _be['o]rh_, _hill_ (berg)--_dochter_, _dohtor_,
_daughter_, &c.
As a general statement we may say, that in the transition letters the
Frisian corresponds with the A. S. more closely than it does with any other
language. It must, moreover, be remarked, that, in such pairs of words as
_frjund_ and _freond_, the difference (as far at least as the _e_ and _j_
are concerned) is a mere difference of orthography. Such also is probably
the case with the words _d['e]d_ and _daed_, and many others.
The Anglo-Saxon inflection of ^a) Substantives ending in a vowel, ^b)
Substantives ending in a consonant, ^c) Adjectives with an indefinite ^d)
Adjectives with a definite sense, ^e) Verbs Active ^f) and verbs auxiliar,
may be seen in the comparison between the A. S. and the Icelandic. The
corresponding inflections in Frisian are as follows:--
(_a_).
_Substantives ending in a vowel._
_Neuter._ _Masculine._ _Feminine._
_Sing. Nom._ ['A]re (_an ear_) Campa (_a champion_) Tunge (_a tongue_).
_Acc._ ['A]re Campa Tunga.
_Dat._ ['A]ra Campa Tunga.
_Gen._ ['A]ra Campa Tunga.
_Plur. Nom._ ['A]ra Campa Tunga.
_Acc._ ['A]ra Campa Tunga.
_Dat._ ['A]ron Campon Tungon.
_Gen._ ['A]rona Campona Tungona.
(_b_).
_Substantives ending in a consonant._
_Neuter._ _Feminine._
_Sing. Nom._ Skip (_a ship_) Hond (_a hand_).
_Acc._ Skip Hond.
{52}
_Dat._ Skipe Hond.
_Gen._ Skipis Honde.
_Plur. Nom._ Skipu Honda.
_Acc._ Skipu Honda.
_Dat._ Skipum Hondum (-on).
_Gen._ Skipa Honda.
With respect to the masculine substantives terminating in a consonant, it
must be observed that in A. S. there are two modes of declension; in one,
the plural ends in _-s_; in the other, in _-a_. The specimen in s. 83
represents the first of these modes only. From this the Frisian is
essentially different. With the second it has a close alliance; _e.g._:--
_Saxon._ _Frisian._
_Sing. Nom._ Sunu (_a son_) Sunu.
_Acc._ Sunu Sunu.
_Dat._ Suna Suna.
_Gen._ Suna Suna.
_Plur. Nom._ Suna Suna.
_Acc._ Suna Suna.
_Dat._ Sunum Sunum.
_Gen._ Sunena (Sunena).
(_c_).
_Indefinite Declension of Adjectives._
_Neuter._ _Masculine._ _Feminine._
_Sing. Nom._ G['o]d G['o]d G['o]d.
_Acc._ G['o]d G['o]dene G['o]de.
_Dat._ G['o]da (-um) G['o]da (-um). G['o]dere.
_Gen._ G['o]des G['o]des G['o]dere.
_Plur. Nom._ G['o]de G['o]de G['o]de.
_Acc._ G['o]de G['o]de G['o]de.
_Dat._ G['o]dum (-a) G['o]dum (-a) G['o]dum (-a).
_Gen._ G['o]dera G['o]dera G['o]dera.
(_d_).
_Definite._
_Neuter._ _Masculine._ _Feminine._
_Sing. Nom._ G['o]de G['o]da G['o]de.
_Acc._ G['o]de G['o]da G['o]da.
{53}
_Dat._ G['o]da G['o]da G['o]da.
_Gen._ G['o]da G['o]da G['o]da.
_Plur. Nom._ G['o]da G['o]da G['o]da.
_Acc._ G['o]da G['o]da G['o]da.
_Dat._ G['o]da (-on) G['o]da (-on) G['o]da (-on).
_Gen._ G['o]da (-ona) G['o]da (-ona) G['o]da (-ona).
(_e_).
_The Persons of the Present Tense._
_Indicative Mood._
_Sing._ 1. Berne _I burn._
2. Bernst _Thou burnest._
3. Bernth _He burns._
_Plur._ 1. Bernath _We burn._
2. Bernath _Ye burn._
3. Bernath _They burn._
In the inflection of the verbs there is between the Frisian and A. S. this
important difference. In A. S. the infinite ends in _-an_ _macian_, to
make, _laeran_, to learn, _baernan_, to burn; whilst in Frisian it ends in
_-a_, as _maka_, _l['e]ra_, _berna_.
(_f_).
_The Auxiliar Verb_ Wesa, _To Be_.
_Indicative._
_Present._ _Past._
_Sing._ 1. Ik ben 1. Ik }
2. ? 2. Th['u] } Was.
3. Hi is 3. Hi }
_Plur._ 1. Wi } 1. Wi }
2. I } Send 2. I } Weron.
3. Hja } 3. Hja }
_Subjunctive._
_Present._ _Past._
_Sing._ 1. 2. 3. Se 1. 2. 3. W['e]re.
_Plur._ 1. 2. 3. Se 1. 2. 3. W['e]re.
_Infin. Wesa._ _Pr. Part._ Wesande. _Past Part._ E-wesen.
The Frisian numerals (to be compared with those of the Anglo-Saxons, p.
43), are as follows:--_['E]n_, _tw['a]_, _thrj['u]_, {54} _fj['u]wer_,
_f['i]f_, _sex_, _sj['u]gun_, _achta_, _njugun_, _tian_, &c. Of these the
first three take an inflection, e.g., _En_, like _Gode_ and the adjectives,
has both a definite and an indefinite form, _en_, and _thet ene_; whilst
_twa_ and _thrj['u]_ run as follows:--_Nom._ and _Acc. Neut._ twa; _Masc._
twene; _Fem._ twa; _Dat._ twam; _Gen._ twira.--_Nom._ and _Acc. Neut._
thrju; _Masc._ thre; _Fem._ thrja; _Dat._ thrim; _Gen._ thrira.
In respect to the Pronouns, there is in the Old Frisian of Friesland no
dual number, as there is in Anglo-Saxon. On the other hand, however, the
Frisians (whilst they have no such form as _his_) possess, like the
Icelandic, the inflected adjectival pronoun _sin_, corresponding to the
Latin _suus_: whilst, like the Anglo-Saxons, and unlike the Icelanders,
they have nothing to correspond with the Latin _se_.
s. 95. In Frisian there is between the demonstrative pronoun used as an
article, and the same word used as a demonstrative in the limited sense of
the term, the following difference of declension:--
THE ARTICLE.
_Neuter._ _Masculine._ _Feminine._
_Sing. Nom._ Thet Thi Thj['u].
_Acc._ Thet Thene Th['a].
\----------\/--------/
_Dat._ Th['a] There.
_Gen._ Thes There.
\--------------\/-------------/
_Plur. Nom._ Th['a].
_Acc._ Th['a].
_Dat. _ Th['a].
_Gen._ Th['e]ra.
PRONOUN.
_The Demonstrative in the limited sense of the word._
_Neuter._ _Masculine._ _Feminine._
_Sing. Nom._ Thet Thi Se.
_Acc._ Thet Thene Se.
\---------\/--------/
_Dat._ Tham There.
_Gen._ Thes There.
\-------------\/---------------/
{55}
_Plur. Nom._ Se.
_Acc._ Se.
_Dat._ Th['a]m.
_Gen._ Th['e]ra.
The Saxons draw no such a distinction. With them the article and
demonstrative is declined as follows:--
_Neuter._ _Masculine._ _Feminine._
_Sing. Nom._ Thaet Se Seo.
_Acc._ Thaet Thone Th['a].
\-----\/----/
_Dat._ Tham Th['ae]re.
_Gen._ Thaes Th['ae]re.
\--------\/-------/
_Plur. Nom._ Th['a].
_Acc._ Th['a].
_Dat._ Th['a]m.
_Gen._ Th['a]ra.
s. 96. _Specimen of Glossarial affinity._--Taken from Rask's Preface to his
Frisian Grammar:--
_Frisian._ _Anglo Saxon._ _English._
['A]ge E['a]ge _Eye_.
H['a]ved He['a]fod _Head_.
Kind Cild _Child_.
Erva Eafora _Heir_.
Drochten Drihten _Lord_.
Nacht Niht _Night_.
R['e]d R['ae]d _Council_ (_Rede_).
D['e]de D['ae]d _Deed_.
Nose Nasu _Nose_.
['E]in ['A]gen _Own_.
K['a]pie Ceapige _I buy_ (_Chapman_).
Dua Don _To do_.
Sl['a] Sle['a]n _Slay_.
Gunga Gangan _Go_ (_Gang_).
* * * * *
s. 97. In this Chapter there has been, thus far, an attempt to do two
things at once. Firstly, to exhibit the _general_ likeness between stocks,
branches, &c.; and secondly, to show the _special_ affinities between
certain languages allied to our {56} own, and of the Gothic Stock. What
follows, consists of certain observations upon two or three points of
nomenclature.
s. 98. _German._--The points to remember concerning this term are--
1. That it is no national name, but a name given by the Latins to the
natives of the country called Germania. The word _German_ is foreign to all
the Gothic languages.
2. That it was first applied to proper Germanic tribes in the time of
Julius Caesar, and that it served to distinguish the Gothic Germans from
the Celtic Gauls.
3. That, anterior to the time of Caesar, there is no proof of it being
applied as a distinctive designation to any of the tribes to whom it was
afterwards limited. The first tribe to whom it was applied, was (in the
opinion of the present writer) a Gallic tribe.
4. That since the time of Julius Caesar, its application has been constant,
_i.e._, it has always meant Gothic tribes, or Gothic languages.
5. That sometimes it has been general to the whole nation--_Unde fit ut
tantae populorum multitudines arctoo sub axe oriantur, ut non immerito
universa illa regio Tanai tenus usque ad occiduum, licet et propriis loca
ea singula nuncupentur nominibus, generali tamen vocabulo Germania
vocitetur ... Gothi, siquidem, Vandalique, Rugi, Heruli, atque Turcilingi,
necnon etiam aliae feroces ac barbarae nationes e Germania
prodierunt._--Paulus Diaconus.
6. That sometimes it has been peculiar and distinctive to certain prominent
portions of the nation--_equi fraenis_ Germanicis, _sellis_ Saxonicis
_falerati_.
7. That the general power of the word has been, with few exceptions,
limited to the Germans of Germany. We do not find either English or
Scandinavian writers calling their countrymen _Germani_.
8. That the two German tribes most generally meant, when the word _German_
is used in a limited sense, are the Franks and the Alemanni.
9. That by a similar latitude the words _Francic_ and {57} _Alemannic_ have
been occasionally used as synonymous with _Germanic_.
10. That the origin of the word _Germani_, in the Latin language, is a
point upon which there are two hypotheses.
_a._ That it is connected with the Latin word _Germani_=_brothers_, meaning
either tribes akin to one another, or tribes in a degree of _brotherly_
alliance with Rome.
_b._ That it grew out of some such German word as _Herman_, _Irmin_,
_Wehrmann_, or the _Herm-_ in _Hermunduri_, _Hermiones_, &c.
Neither of these views satisfies the present writer.
For all the facts concerning the word _Germani_, see the Introduction to
the third edition of the Deutsche Grammar.
s. 99. _Dutch._--For the purposes of Philology the meaning given to this
word is inconvenient. In England, it means the language of the people of
Holland.
In Germany, Holland, and Scandinavia, it means the language of the people
of Germany in _general_; and this _general_ power of the word is retained
even with us in the expression High-Dutch, and Low-Dutch. In the present
work the term is avoided as much as possible. Nevertheless, wherever it
occurs it means the Dutch of Holland.
The origin of the word has been a subject of much investigation; the
question, however, may be considered to be settled by the remarks of Grimm,
D. G.--_Introduction to the third edition_.
1. It was originally no national name at all.
2. In the earliest passage where it occurs, the derivative form
_thiudisk[^o]_ corresponds with the Greek word [Greek: ethnikos]--_The
Moeso-Gothic Translation of the New Testament_--_Galatians_, ii. 14.
3. The derivation of the word from the substantive _thiudu_=_a people_, _a
nation_, is undoubted.
4. So also is the derivation of the modern word _Dutch_, in all its varied
forms:--Old High-German, _Diutisc_; Anglo-Saxon, _The['o]disc_; Latin,
_Theodisca_, _Theudisca_, _Teutisca_; Italian, _Tedesco_; Danish, _Tyske_;
English, _Dutch_; the latter part of the word being the adjectival ending
_-isc_=_ish_. {58}
5. The original meaning being _of, or belonging to, the people_, or _of, or
belonging to, the nation_, secondary meanings grew out of it.
6. Of these the most remarkable are _a_) the power given to the word in
Ulphilas (_heathen_), illustrated by the similarly secondary power of the
Greek [Greek: ethnikos]; _b_) the meaning _vernacular_, _provincial_ or
_vulgar_ given to it as applied to language.
7. This latter power was probably given to it about the ninth century.
8. That it was not given much before, is inferred from negative evidence.
The word _theotisca_ is not found in the Latin writers of the sixth,
seventh, and eighth centuries, although there are plenty of passages where
it might well have been used had it existed. The terms really used are
either _patrius sermo_, _sermo barbaricus_, _sermo vulgaricus_, _lingua
rustica_; or else the names of particular tribes, as _lingua Anglorum_,
_Alamannorum_.
9. That it was current in the ninth century is evident from a variety of
quotations:--_Ut quilibet episcopus homilias aperte transferre studeat in
rusticam Romanam linguam, aut _theotiscam_, quo tandem cuncti possint
intelligere quae dicantur._--Synodus Turonensis. _Quod in lingua
_Thiudisca_ scaftlegi, id est armorum depositio, vocatur._--Capit.
Wormatiense. _De collectis quas _Theudisca_ lingua heriszuph
appellat._--Conventus Silvacensis. _Si _barbara_, quam _Teutiscam_ dicunt,
lingua loqueretur._--Vita Adalhardi, &c.--D.G., i. p. 14, _Introduction_.
10. That its present national sense is wholly secondary and derivative, and
that originally it was no more the name of a people or a language than the
word _vulgate_ in the expression _the vulgate translation of the
Scriptures_ is the name of a people or a language.
s. 100. _Teutonic._--About the tenth century the Latin writers upon German
affairs began to use not only the words _Theotiscus_ and _Theotisc['e]_,
but also the words _Teutonicus_ and _Teutonic['e]_. Upon this, Grimm
remarks that the latter term sounded more learned; since _Teutonicus_ was a
classical word, an adjective derived from the Gentile name of the Teutones
conquered by Manus. Be it so. It then follows that the connexion between
_Teutonicus_ and _Theotiscus_ is a mere accident, the origin {59} of the
two words being different. The worthlessness of all evidence concerning the
Germanic origin of the Teutonic tribes conquered by Marius, based upon the
connexion between the word _Teuton_ and Dutch, has been pointed out by the
present writer in the 17th number of the Philological Transactions.[10] All
that is proved is this, _viz._, that out of the confusion between the two
words arose a confusion between the two nations. These last may or may not
have been of the same race.
s. 101. _Anglo-Saxon_--In the ninth century the language of England was
_Angle_, or _English_. The _lingua Anglorum_ of Bede is translated by
Alfred _on englisce_. The term _Saxon_ was in use also at an early (perhaps
an equally early) date--_fures quos_ Saxonice _dicimus vergeld_ the['o]vas.
The compound term _Anglo-Saxon_ is later.--Grimm, _Introduction to the
third edition of_ D.G., p. 2.
s. 102. _Icelandic, Old Norse._--Although _Icelandic_ is the usual name for
the mother-tongue of the Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian, the Norwegian
philologists generally prefer the term _Old Norse_.
In favour of this view is the fact that Norway was the mother-country,
Iceland the colony, and that much of what is called Old Icelandic was
composed in Norway.
Still the reason is insufficient; since the present term _Icelandic_ is
given to the language not because Iceland _was_ the country that
_produced_, but because it is the country that has _preserved_ it.
This leads to the argument in its most general form--should a language be
named from the colony, or from the mother-country? The Norwegians say from
the mother-country. Let us consider this.
Suppose that whilst the Latin of Virgil and Cicero in Italy had been
changing into the modern Italian, in some old Roman colony (say Sardinia)
it had remained either wholly {60} unaltered, or else, altered so little as
for the modern _Sardinian_--provided he could read at all--to be able to
read the authors of the Augustan age, just like those of the era of Charles
Albert; no other portion of the old Roman territory--not even Rome
itself--having any tongue more like to that of the Classical writers, than
the most antiquated dialect of the present Italian. Suppose, too, that the
term _Latin_ had become obsolete, would it be imperative upon us to call
the language of the Classics _Old Italian_, _Old Roman_, or at least _Old
Latin_, when no modern native of Rome, Latium, or Italy could read them?
Would it be wrong to call it _Sardinian_ when every Sarde _could_ read
them? I think not. _Mutatis mutandis_, this is the case with Iceland and
Norway.
* * * * *
{61}
CHAPTER V.
ANALYSIS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE--GERMANIC ELEMENTS.
s. 103. The population and, to a certain extent, the language of England,
have been formed of three elements, which in the most general way may be
expressed as follows:--
_a._ Elements referable to the original British population, and derived
from times anterior to the Anglo-Saxon invasion.
_b._ Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, or imported elements.
_c._ Elements introduced since the Anglo-Saxon conquest.
s. 104. Each of these requires a special analysis, but that of the second
will be taken first, and will form the contents of the present chapter.
All that we have at present learned concerning the Germanic invaders of
England, is the geographical area which they wholly or partially occupied,
and the tribes and nations with which they were conterminous whilst in
Germany. How far, however, it was simple Saxons who conquered England
single-handed, or how far the particular Saxon Germans were portions of a
complex population, requires further investigation. Were the Saxons one
division of the German population, whilst the Angles were another? or were
the Angles a section of the Saxons, so that the latter was a generic term,
including the former? Again, although the Saxon invasion may be the one
which has had the greatest influence, and drawn the most attention, why may
there not have been separate and independent migrations, the effects and
record of which, have in the lapse of time, become fused with those of the
more important divisions?
Questions like these require notice, and in a more advanced state of what
may be called _minute ethnographical_ {62} _philology_ will obtain more of
it than has hitherto been their share. At present our facts are few, and
our methods of investigation imperfect.
s. 105. In respect to this last, it is necessary to distinguish between the
opinions based on _external_, and the opinions based on _internal_
evidence. To the former class belong the testimonies of cotemporary
records, or (wanting these) of records based upon transmitted, but
cotemporary, evidence. To the latter belong the inferences drawn from
similarity of language, name, and other ethnological _data_. Of such, a
portion only will be considered in the present chapter; not that they have
no proper place in it, but because the minuter investigation of an
important section of these (_i.e._, the subject of the _English dialects_)
will be treated as a separate subject elsewhere.
s. 106. _The Angles; who were they, and what was their relation to the
Saxons?_--The first answer to this question embodies a great fact in the
way of internal evidence, _viz._, that they were the people from whom
_England_ derives the name it bears=_the Angle-land_, i.e., _land of the
Angles_. Our language too is _English_, i.e., _Angle_. Whatever, then, they
may have been on the Continent, they were a leading section of the invaders
here. Why then has their position in our inquiries been hitherto so
subordinate to that of the Saxons? It is because their definitude and
preponderance are not so manifest in Germany as we infer (from the terms
_England_ and _English_) it to have been in Britain. Nay more, their
historical place amongst the nations of Germany, and within the German
area, is both insignificant and doubtful; indeed, it will be seen from the
sequel, that _in and of themselves_ we know next to nothing about them,
knowing them only in their _relations_, _i.e._, to ourselves and to the
Saxons. The following, however, are the chief facts that form the
foundation for our inferences.
s. 107. Although they are the section of the immigration which gave the
name to England, and as such, the preponderating element in the eyes of the
present _English_, they were not so in the eyes of the original British;
who neither knew at the time of the Conquest, nor know now, of any other
name for their German enemies but _Saxon_. And _Saxon_ is the {63} name by
which the present English are known to the Welsh, Armorican, and Gaelic
Celts.
Welsh _Saxon_.
Armorican _Soson_.
Gaelic _Sassenach_.
s. 108. Although they are the section of the immigration which gave the
name to _England_, &c., they were quite as little Angles as Saxons, in the
eyes of foreign cotemporary writers; since the expression _Saxoniae
trans-marinae_, occurs as applied to England.
s. 109. Although they are the section of the immigration which gave the
name to _England_, &c., the material notice of them as Germans of Germany,
are limited to the following facts.
_Extract from Tacitus._--This merely connects them with certain other
tribes, and affirms the existence of certain religious ordinances common to
them--
"Contra Langobardos paucitas nobilitat: plurimis ac valentissimis
nationibus cincti, non per obsequium, sed proeliis et periclitando tuti
sunt. Reudigni deinde, et Aviones, et _Angli_, et Varini, et Eudoses, et
Suardones, et Nuithones, fluminibus aut silvis muniuntur: nec quidquam
notabile in singulis, nisi quod in commune Herthum, id est, Terram matrem
colunt, eamque intervenire rebus hominum, invehi populis, arbitrantur. Est
in insula Oceani castum nemus, dicatumque in eo vehiculum, veste contectum,
attingere uni sacerdoti concessum. Is adesse penetrali deam intelligit,
vectamque bobus feminis mult[^a] cum veneratione prosequitur. Laeti tunc
dies, festa loca, quaecumque adventu hospitioque dignatur. Non bella
ineunt, non arma sumunt, clausum omne ferrum; pax et quies tunc tant[`u]m
nota, tunc tant[`u]m amata, donec idem sacerdos satiatam conversatione
mortalium deam templo reddat: mox vehiculum et vestes, et, si credere
velis, numen ipsum secreto lacu abluitur. Servi ministrant, quos statim
idem lacus haurit. Arcanus hinc terror, sanctaque ignorantia, quid sit id,
quod tant[`u]m perituri vident."[11]
_Extract from Ptolemy._--This connects the Angles with {64} the _Suevi_,
and _Langobardi_, and places them on the Middle Elbe.
[Greek: Entos kai mesogeion ethnon megista men esti to, te ton Souebon ton
Angeilon, hoi eisin anatolikoteroi ton Langobardon, anateinontes pros tas
arktous mechri ton meson tou Albios potamou.]
_Extract from Procopius._--For this see s. 129.
_Heading of a law referred to the age of Charlemagne._--This connects them
with the Werini (Varni), and the Thuringians--"Incipit lex _Angliorum_ et
_Verinorum_ (_Varni_); hoc est _Thuringorum_."--Zeuss, 495, and Grimm.
G.D.S.
s. 110. These notices agree in giving the Angles a German locality, and in
connecting them ethnologically, and philologically with the Germans of
Germany. The notices that follow, traverse this view of the question, by
indicating a slightly different area, and Danish rather than German
affinities.
_Extracts connecting them with the inhabitants of the Cimbric
Peninsula._--_a._ The quotation from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle of s. 16.
_b._ From Bede; "Porro de Anglis, hoc est illa patria, quae _Angulus_
dicitur, et ab eo tempore usque hodie, manere desertus inter provincias
Jutarum et Saxonum perhibetur."--Angl. i. 15.
_c._ From Alfred, "And be waestan eald Seaxum is Albe mudha thaere ea and
Frisland. And thanon west nordh is thaet land, the man _Angle_, haet and
Sillende, and summe dael Dena."[12]--Oros. p. 20.
Also, speaking of Other's voyage,[13] "He seglode to thaem porte the man
haet Haethum; se stent betwuhs Winedum and Seaxum, and _Angle_, and hyrdh
in on Dene ... and tha {65} twegen dagas aer he to Haedhum come, him waes
on thaet steorbord Gothland and Sillende and iglanda fela. On thaem landum
eardodon Engle, aer hi hidher on land comon."[14]--Oros. p. 23.
d. From Etherwerd, writing in the eleventh century--"_Anglia_ vetus sita
est inter Saxones et Giotos, habens oppidum capitale, quod sermone Saxonico
_Sleswic_ nuncupatur, secundum vero Danos _Hathaby_."[14]
s. 111. _The district called Angle._--The district of _Anglen_, so called
(where it is mentioned at all) at the present moment, is a part of the
Dutchy of Sleswick, which is literally an _Angle_; _i.e._, a triangle of
irregular shape, formed by the Schlie, the Flensborger Fiord, and a line
drawn from Flensborg to Sleswick; every geographical name in it being, at
present, Danish, whatever it may have been previously. Thus some villages
end in _bye_ (Danish=_town_) as Hus-_bye_, Herreds-_bye_, Ulse-_bye_, &c.;
some in _gaard_ (=_house_), as _Oegaard_; whilst the other Danish forms are
_skov_=_wood_ (_shaw_), _hofved_=_head_, _lund_=_grove_, &c. In short it
has nothing to distinguish it from the other parts of the peninsula.
s. 112. Add to these the Danish expression, that _Dan_ and _Angul_ were
brothers, as the exponent of a recognised relationship between the two
populations, and we have a view of the evidence in favour of the Danish
affinity.
s. 113. _Inferences and remarks._--_a._ That whilst the root _Angl-_ in
Tacitus, Ptolemy, Procopius, and the Leges Anglorum, &c., is the name of a
_people_, the root _Angl-_ in the _Anglen_ of Sleswick, is the name of a
district; a fact which is further confirmed by the circumstance of there
being in at least one other part of Scandinavia, a district with a similar
name--"Hann ['a]tti bu a Halogolandi i _Aungli_."[14]--Heimskringla, iii.
454.
_b._ That the derivation of the _Angles_ of England from the _Anglen_ of
Sleswick is an inference of the same kind with the one respecting the Jutes
(see s. 20), made by the same writers, probably on the same principle, and
most likely incorrectly.
_c._ That the Angles of England were the Angli of Tacitus, {66} Ptolemy,
Procopius, and the Leges Anglorum et Werinorum, whatever these were.
s. 114. What were the _Langobardi_, with whom the Angles were connected by
Tacitus? The most important facts to be known concerning them are, (1) that
the general opinion is in favour of their having belonged to the
_High_-German, or Moeso-Gothic division, rather than to the _Low_; (2) that
their original locality either reached or lay beyond the Elbe; a locality,
which, in the tenth century, was _Slavonic_, and which, in the opinion of
the present writer, we have no reason to consider to have been other than
Slavonic during the nine preceding ones.--That they were partially, at
least, on this side of the Elbe, we learn from the following:--"Receptae
Cauchorum nationes, fracti Langobardi, gens etiam Germanis feritate
ferocior; denique usque ad flumen Albim ... Romanus cum signis perductus
exercitus."[15]--Velleius Paterc. ii. 106.
s. 115. What were the _Suevi_, with whom the Angles were connected by
Tacitus? The most important facts to be known concerning them are, (1) that
the general opinion is in favour of their having belonged to the
_High_-German or Moeso-Gothic, division, rather than to the _Low_; (2) that
their original locality either reached or lay beyond the Elbe; a locality,
which, in the tenth century, was _Slavonic_, and which, in the opinion of
the present writer, we have no reason to consider to have been other than
Slavonic during the nine preceding ones. In other words, what applies to
the Langobardi applies to the Suevi also.
What the Suevi were, the Semnones were also, "Vetustissimos se
nobilissimosque Suevorum Semnones memorant." Tac. Germ., 39. Speaking, too,
of their great extension, he says, _centum pagi ab iis habitantur_.[15]
Velleius states that there were Suevi on the west of the Middle Elbe,
Ptolemy, that there were Suevi to the east of it, _i.e._, as far as the
River Suebus (Oder?).--[Greek: Kai to ton Souebon ton Semnonon, hoitines
diekousi meta ton Albin apo tou eiremenou merous] {67} (the middle Elbe)
[Greek: pros anatolas mechri tou Souebou potamou].[16]
In the letter of Theodeberht to the Emperor Justinian, we find the
_North_-Suevians mentioned along with the Thuringians, as having been
conquered by the Franks; "Subactis Thuringis ... _Norsavorum_ gentis nobis
placata majestas colla subdidit."[16]
s. 116. What were the _Werini_, with whom the Angles were connected in the
_Leges Anglorum et Werinorum_? Without having any particular _data_ for
connecting the Werini (Varni, [Greek: Ouarnoi]) with either the
High-German, or the Moeso-Gothic divisions, there are in favour of their
being Slavonic in locality, the same facts as applied to the Suevi and
Langobardi, with the additional one, that the name probably exists at
present in the River _Warnow_, of Mecklenburg Schwerin, at the mouth of
which (Warnemunde) the town of Rostock stands.
s. 117. What were the _Thuringians_, with whom the Angles are connected in
the _Leges Anglorum_, &c.; Germanic in locality, and most probably allied
to the Goths of Moesia in language.
s. 118. Of the Reudigni, Eudoses, Nuithones, Suardones, and Aviones, too
little is known in detail to make the details an inquiry of importance.
Respecting them all, it may be said at once, that whatever may be the
Germanic affinities involved in their connection with the Suevi,
Langobardi, Angli, &c., they are traversed by the fact of their locality
being in the tenth century Slavonic.
s. 119. The last tribe which will be mentioned, is that of the _Angrarii_,
most probably another form of the _Angrivarii_ of Tacitus, the name of the
occupants of the valley of the Aller, the northern confluent of the Weser.
As this word is compound (-_varii_=_ware_=_inhabitants_), the root remains
_Angr-_, a word which only requires the _r_ to become _l_ in order to make
_Angl-_. As both the locality and the relation to the Saxons, make the
_Angrivarian_ locality one of the best we could assume for the _Angles_,
the only {68} difficulty lies in the change from _r_ to _l_. Unfortunately,
this, in the Saxon-German, is an unlikely one.
s. 120. The last fact connected with the Angles, will be found in a more
expanded form in the Chapter on the Dialects of the English Language. It
relates to the distribution over the conquered parts of Britain. Their
chief area was the Midland and Eastern counties, Norfolk, Suffolk,
Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, Leicestershire, &c., rather than the parts
south of the Thames, which were Saxon, and those north of the Wash, where
Danish influences have been considerable.
s. 121. The reader has now got a general view of the extent to which the
position of the Angles, as a German tribe, is complicated by conflicting
statements; statements which connect them with (probably) _High_-German
Thuringians, Suevi, and Langobardi, and with (probably) _Slavonic_ Varni,
Eudoses, Suardones, &c.; whereas in England, they are scarcely
distinguishable from the _Low_-German Saxons. In the present state of our
knowledge, the only safe fact seems to be, that of the common relation of
both _Angle_ and Saxon, to the present _English_ of England.
This brings the two sections within a very close degree of affinity, and
makes it probable, that just, as at present, descendants of the Saxons are
English (_Angle_) in Britain, so, in the third and fourth centuries,
ancestors of the Angles were Saxons in Germany. Why, however, the one name
preponderated on the Continent, and the other in England is difficult to
ascertain.
s. 122. By considering the Angles as Saxons under another name (or _vice
vers[^a]_), and by treating the statement as to the existence of Jutes in
Hampshire and the Isle of Wight as wholly unhistorical, we get, as a
general expression for the Anglo-Germanic immigration, that it consisted of
the closely allied tribes of the North-Saxon area, an expression that
implies a general uniformity of population. Is there reason to think that
the uniformity was absolute?
s. 123. The following series of facts, when put together, will prepare us
for a fresh train of reasoning concerning the different geographical and
ethnological relations of the {69} immigrants into England, during their
previous habitation in Germany.
1. The termination _-as_ is, like the _-s_ in the modern English, the sign
of the plural number in Anglo-Saxon.
2. The termination _-ing_ denotes, _in the first instance_, a certain
number of individuals collected together, and united with each other as a
clan, tribe, family, household.
3. In doing this, it generally indicates a relationship of a _personal_ or
_political_ character. Thus two _Baningas_ might be connected with each
other, and (as such) indicated by the same term from any of the following
causes--relationship, subordination to the same chief, origin from the same
locality, &c.
4. Of these _personal_ connections, the one which is considered to be the
commonest is that of _descent_ from a common ancestor, so that the
termination _-ing_ in this case, is a real _patronymic_.
5. Such an ancestor need not be real; indeed, he rarely if ever is so. Like
the _eponymus_ of the classical writers, he is the hypothetical, or
mythological, progenitor of the clan, sept, or tribe, as the case may be;
_i.e._, as Aeolus, Dorus, and Ion to the Aeolians, Dorians, and Ionians.
Now, by admitting these facts without limitation, and by applying them
freely and boldly to the Germanic population of England, we arrive at the
following inferences.
1. That where we meet two (or more) households, families, tribes, clans, or
septs of the same name (that name ending in _-ing_), in different parts of
England, we may connect them with each other, either directly or
indirectly; directly when we look on the second as an offset from the
first; indirectly, when we derive both from some third source.
2. That when we find families, tribes, &c., of the same name, both in
Britain and in Germany, we may derive the English ones from the
continental.
Now neither of these views is hypothetical. On the contrary each is a real
fact. Thus in respect to divisions of the population, designated by names
ending in _-ing_, we have
1. In Essex, Somerset, and Sussex,--_Aestingas_.
2. In Kent, Dorset, Devonshire, and Lincoln,--_Alingas_. {70}
3. In Sussex, Berks, and Northamptonshire,--_Ardingas_.
4. In Devonshire, Gloucestershire, and Sussex,--_Arlingas_.
5. In Herts, Kent, Lincolnshire, and Salop,--_Baningas_.
6. In Norfolk, Suffolk, Surrey, Sussex, and the Isle of
Wight,--_Beadingas_.
7. In Kent, Devonshire, Lincolnshire, Herefordshire, Salop, and
Somerset,--_Beringas_.
8. In Bedford, Durham, Kent, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk,
Northamptonshire, Northumberland, Salop, Sussex, and the Isle of
Wight,--_Billingas_, &c.--the list being taken from Mr. Kemble, vol. i. p.
64.
s. 124. On the other hand, the following Anglo-Saxon names in _-ing_,
reappear in different parts of Germany, sometimes in definite geographical
localities, as the occupants of particular districts, sometimes as
mentioned in poems without further notice.
1. _Waelsingas_,--as the Volsungar of the Iceland, and the Waelsingen of
the German heroic legends.
2. _Herelingas_,--mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon poem known by the name of
the Traveller's Song, containing a long list of the Gothic tribes,
families, nations, &c.
3. _Brentingas._--Ibid.
4. _Scyldingas._--Ibid.
5. _Scylfingas._--Ibid.
6. _Ardingas._
7. _Baningas_, Traveller's Song, mentioned as the subjects of Becca.
8. _Helsingas._--Ibid.
9. _Myrgingas._--Ibid.
10. _Hundingas._--Ibid.
11. _Hocingas._--Ibid.
12. _Seringas._--Ibid.
13. _Dhyringas_=Thuringians. (?)
14. _Bleccingas._
15. _Gytingas._
16. _Scydingas._
17. _Dylingas._
s. 125. We will still, for argument's sake, and for the sake {71} of the
illustration of an ethnological method, take these names along with the
observations by which they were preceded, as if they were wholly
unexceptionable; and, having done this, ask how far each is known as
_German_. So doing, we must make two divisions:
_a._ Those which we have no reason to think other than Angle or Saxon.
_b._ Those which indicate elements of the migration other than Angle or
Saxon.
s. 126. _Patronymics which do not necessarily denote a non-Saxon
element._--Of these, the following are so little known, that they may pass
as Saxons, simply because we have no grounds for thinking them aught else;
the Brentings, Banings, Helsings, Serings, Ardings, Hundings, Blekings,
Herelings, Gytings, Scydings, Dylings. The Scyldings and Scefings, belong,
in a more positive way, to the Anglo-Saxon division; since their eponymi,
Scyld and Sceaf, form a portion of the Anglo-Saxon mythology.
s. 127. _Patronymics indicating a non-Saxon, rather than a Saxon
element._--_a._ The Waelsings--In the way of tradition and mythology, this
is a _Frank_ gentile name.
_b._ The Myrgings.--_Ditto._ This is the German form of the Merovingians.
_c._ The Hocings.--This is the German form of the Chauci, and, as such, a
Frisian gentile name.
d. The Dhyrings.--Perhaps Thuringians of Thuringia.
Thus, then, if we still assume that the method in question is
unexceptionable, we have, from the evidence of what may be called either
the _gentile forms_, or the _patronymics_ in _-ing_, reasons for believing
that Frank _Myrgings_, Frisian _Hocings_, and Thuringian _Dhyrings_, formed
part of the invasion--these, at least; possibly others besides.
And why should the reason be other than unexceptionable? Do we not in North
America, believe, that, _as a general rule_, the families with particular
names, coincide with the families so-called in England; that the names of
certain places, _sometimes_, at least, indicate a population originating in
places similarly designated here? that the Smiths and Johnstons {72} are
English in origin, and that O'Connors and O'Neils are Irish? We certainly
believe all this, and, in many cases, we believe it, on the ground of the
identity of name only.
s. 128. _Exceptions._--Still there are exceptions. Of these the most
important are as follows:--
1. The termination _-ing_ is sometimes added to an undoubtedly British
root, so as to have originated within the island, rather than to have been
brought from the continent, _e.g._, the _Kent-ings_=_the people of Kent_.
In such a case, the similarity to a German name, if it exist at all, exists
as an accident.
2. The same, or nearly the same, name may not only occur in different parts
of one and the same division of the Germanic areas, but in different ones,
_e.g._, the Dhyrings _may_ denote the Thuringians of Thuringia; but they
may also denote the people of a district, or town, in Belgium, designated
as _Dorringen_.[17]
Still as a method, the one in question should be understood; although it
has been too short a time before the learned world to have borne fruit.
N.B.--What applies to the coincidence of _gentile_ or _patronymic_ names on
the two sides of the water, applies also to dialects; _e.g._, if (say) the
Kentish differed from the other dialects of England, just in the same way,
and with the same peculiar words and forms, as (say) the Verden dialect
differed from the ones of Germany, we might fairly argue, that it was from
the district of Verden that the county of Kent is peopled. At present we
are writing simply for the sake of illustrating certain philological
methods. The question of dialect will be treated in Part VII.
s. 129. _German tribes where there is no direct evidence as to their having
made part of the population of England, but where the _[`a] priori_
probabilities are strongly in their favour._ This applies to--_a._ The
Batavians. No direct evidence, but great _[`a] priori_ probability.
_b._ _The Frisians._--Great _[`a] priori_ probability, and {73} something
more; [Greek: Brittian de ten neson ethne tria poluanthropotata echousi,
basileus te heis auton hekastoi ephesteken, onomata de keitai tois ethnesi
toutois Angiloi te kai Phrissones kai hoi tei nesoi homonumoi Brittones.
Tosaute de he tonde ton ethnon poluanthropia phainetai ousa hoste ana pan
etos kata pollous enthende metanistamenoi xun gunaixi kai paisin es
Phrangous chorousin].[18]--Procop. B. G. iv. 20.
s. 130. I believe, for my own part, there were portions in the early
Germanic population of Britain, which were not strictly either Angle or
Saxon (Anglo-Saxon); but I do this without thinking that it bore any great
ratio to the remainder, and without even guessing at what that ratio was,
or whereabouts its different component elements were located--the Frisians
and Batavians being the most probable. With this view, there may have been
Jutes as well; notwithstanding what has been said in ss. 16-20; since the
reasoning there is not so against a Jute element _in toto_, as against that
particular Jute element, in which Beda, Alfred, and the later writers
believed and believe.
s. 131. No exception against the existence of Batavian, Frisian, Frank, and
other elements not strictly Anglo-Saxon, is to be taken from the absence of
traces of such in the present language, and that for the following reason.
_Languages which differ in an older form may so far change according to a
common principle, as to become identical in a newer one._ _E.g._, the
Frisian infinitive in verbs ends in _-a_, (as _baerna_=_to burn_), the
Saxon in _-an_ (as _baernan_=_to burn_). Here is a difference. Let,
however, the same change affect both languages; that change being the
abandonment, on both sides, of the infinitive termination altogether. What
follows? even that the two originally different forms _baern-a_, and
_baern-an_, both come out _baern_ (_burn_); so that the result is the same,
though the original forms were different.
* * * * *
{74}
CHAPTER VI.
THE CELTIC STOCK OF LANGUAGES, AND THEIR RELATIONS TO THE ENGLISH.
s. 132. The languages of Great Britain at the invasion of Julius Caesar
were of the Celtic stock.
Of the Celtic stock there are two branches.
1. The British or Cambrian branch, represented by the present Welsh, and
containing, besides, the Cornish of Cornwall (lately extinct) and the
Armorican of the French province of Brittany. It is almost certain that the
old British, the ancient language of Gaul, and the Pictish were of this
branch.
2. The Gaelic or Erse Branch, represented by the present Irish Gaelic, and
containing, besides, the Gaelic of the Highlands of Scotland and the Manks
of the Isle of Man.
SPECIMENS.
BRITISH.
_The Lord's Prayer in Cornish._
_Old Cornish._
An Taz, ny es yn n[^e]f, bethens thy hannow ughelles, gwr[^e]nz doz thy
gulas ker: bethens thy voth gwr[^a]z yn oar kepare hag yn n[^e]f: ro
thyn ny hithow agan peb dyth bara; gava thyn ny ny agan cam, kepare ha
gava ny neb es cam ma erbyn ny; nyn homfrek ny en antel, mez gwyth ny
the worth drok: rag gans te yn an mighterneth, and creveder, hag an'
worryans, byz a venitha.
_Modern Cornish._
Agan Taz, leb ez en n[^e]v, benigas beth de hanno, gurra de gulasketh
deaz, de voth beth gwr[^e]z en' oar pokar en n[^e]v; ro dony hithow
agan pyb dyth bara; ha gava do ny agan cabmow, pokara ny gava an gy leb
es cam mo war bidn ny; ha na dege ny en antail, brez gwitha ny dort
droge; rag an mychteyrneth ew chee do honnen, ha an cr[^e]vder, ha an
'worryans, rag bisqueth ha bisqueth.
{75}
_Welsh_ (Cambrian).
_Luke_ XV. 11. 19.
_The Prodigal Son._
11. Yr oedd gan ryw wr ddau fab:
12. A 'r jeuangaf o honynt a ddwedoddwrth _ei_ d[^a]dd, Fy nh[^a]d,
dyro i mi y rhan a ddigwydd o 'r da. Ac efe a ranodd iddynt _ei_ fywyd.
13. Ac yn [^o]l ychydig ddyddiau y m[^a]b jeuangaf a gasglodd y cwbl
ynghyd, ac a gymmerth ei daith i wl[^a]d bell; ac yno efe a wasgarodd
ei dda, gan fyw yn affrallon.
14. Ac wedi iddo dreulio 'r cwbl, y cododd newyn mawr trwy 'r wl[^a]d
honno; ac yntef a ddechreuodd fod mewn eisiau.
15. Ac efe a aeth, ac a lynodd wrth un o ddinaswyr y wl[^a]d honno; ac
efe a 'i hanfonodd ef i 'w faefydd i borthi m[^o]ch.
16. Ac efe a chwennychai lenwi ei fol [^a] 'r cibaua fwytai 'r m[^o]ch;
ac ni roddodd neb iddo.
17. A phan ddaeth arto ei hur, efe addywedodd, Pa sawl gw[^a]s cyflog o
'r eiddo fy nh[^a]d sydd yn cael eu gwala a 'i gweddill o fara, a
minnau yn marw o newyn!
18. Mi a godaf, ac a [^a]f at fy nh[^a]d, ac a ddwyedaf wrtho, Fy
nh[^a]d, pechais yn erbyn y nef, ac o'th flaen dithau.
19. Ac mwyach nid ydwyf deilwng i 'm galw yn f[^a]b i ti: gwna si fel
un o'th weision cyflog.
_Armorican of Bas-Bretagne_ (Cambrian).
THE SAME.
11. Eunn d['e]n en doa daou vab.
12. Hag ar iaouanka an['e]zh[^o] a lavaraz d'he d[^a]d.--Va z[^a]d, ro
d'in al l[^o]den zanvez a zigou['e]z d'in. Hag h['e]n a rannaz h['e]
zanvez gant ho.
13. Hag eunn n['e]be[^u]d derv['e]siou goud['e], ar m[^a]b iaounka,
[^o] v['e]za dastumet k['e]mend en doa en em l['e]k['e]az enn hent
['e]vit mond ['e]tr['e]z['e]g eur vr[^o] bell me[^u]rbe['a], hag
['e]n[^o] ['e] tispinaz h['e] zanvez [^o] v['e]va gant gad['e]lez.
14. Ha pa en do['e] dispinet k['e]mend en doa, ['e] c'hoarv['e]zaz eunn
naoun['e]gez vr[^a]z er vr[^o]-ze, hag ['e] te[^u]az, da
['e]zomm['e]kaat.
15. Ku[^i]d ['e]z ['e]az eta, hag en em lakaad a r['e]az ['e] g['o]pr
gand eunn d['e]n e[^u]z ar vro. Hag h['e] man hen kasaz enn eunn ti
d'['e]zhan war ar m['e]az, ['e]vit mesa ar m[^o]c'h.
16. C'hoant['e]ed en divije le[^u]na he g['o]f gand ar c'hlosou a
zebr['e] ar m[^o]c'h: ha d['e]n na r[^o]['e] d'['e]zhan.
17. H[^o]gen [^o] veza distr[^o]ed d'ezhan h['e] unar, ['e] lavaraz: a
b['e]d g[^o]praer zo ['e] ti va z[^a]d hag en de[^u]z bara ['e] leiz,
ha m['e] a varv aman gand ann naoun!
{76} 18. S['e]vet a rinn, hag ['e]z inn ['e]tr['e]z['e] va zad, hag
['e] livirinn d'ezhan: Va z[^a]d, pech 'ed em euz a eneb ann env hag
enu da enep.
19. N'ounn k['e]t talvoudek pello 'ch da v['e]za galved da v[^a]b: Va
zig['e]mer ['e]vel unar euz da c'h[^o]praerien.
GAELIC.
_Irish Gaelic_ (Gaelic).
THE SAME.
11. Do bh['a]dar di['a]s mac ag duine ['a]irighe:
12. Agus a dubhairt an ti dob ['o]ige aca re _na_ athair, Athair,
tabhair dhamh an chuid roitheas _misi_ dod mha['o]in. Agus do roim
seision a mhaoin eatorra.
13. Agus tar ['e]is bheag['a]in aimsire ag cruinniughadh a choda uile
don mhac dob ['o]ige, do ch['u]aidh s['e] air coigcrigh a dtalamh
imchian, agus do dhiombail se ann sin a mha['o]in l['e] na bheathaidh
b['a]oth-chaithfigh.
14. Agus tar ['e]is a choda uile do chaitheamh dho, deirigh gorta
romh['o]r ann sa t['i]r sin; agus do thosaigh seision ar bheith a
r['i]achdanus.
15. Agus do imthigh s['e] roimhe agus do cheangal s['e] e f['e]in do
ch['a]thruightheoir don t['i]r sin; noch do chuir f['a] na dh['u]ichte
a mach ['e] do bh['u]achuilleachd muc.
16. Agus b['a] mhi['a]n leis a bholg do l['i]noadh do na
f['e]ithl['e]oguibh do ithid['i]s na muca: agus n['i] thugadh
['e]unduine dh['o] ['i]ad.
17. Agus an tan do chuimhnigh s['e] air f['e]in, a dubhairt s['e],
G['a] mh['e]d do luchd tuarasdail matharsa aga bhf['u]il iomarcdid
ar['a]in, agus misi ag dul a m['u]ghd l['e] gorta!
18. E['i]r['e]ochaidh m['e] agus rachaidh m['e] dionnsuighe mathair,
agus de['a]ruidh me ris; A athair! do pheacaid m['e] a naghaidh neimhe
agusad fh['i]adhnuisisi.
19. Agus n['i] fi['u] m['e] feasda do mhacsa do ghairm dhoim: d['e]ana
m['e] mar ['a]on dod luchd thuarasduil.
_Scotch Gaelic_ (Gaelic).
THE SAME.
11. Bha aig duine [`a]raidh dithis mhac:
12. Agus thubhairt _mac_ a b'[`o]ige dhiubh r' _a athair_, Athair,
thoir dhomhsa chuid-roim a thig _orm_, do _d_ mhaoin. Agus roinn e
eatorra a bheathacahadh.
13. Agus an d['e]igh beagain do l['a]ithibh, chruinnich am mac a
b'[`o]ige a chuid uile, agus ghabh e a thurus do dh[`u]thaich fad air
astar, agus an sin chaith e a mhaoin le beatha struidheasaich.
14. Agus an uair achaith e a _chuid_ uile, dh' ['e]irich gorta ro
mh[`o]r san t['i]r sin; agus thoisich e ri bhi ann an uireasbhuidh.
15. Agus chaidh e agus cheangail se e f['e]in ri aon do shaor-dhaoinibh
na d[`u]cha sin: agus chuir ed' fhearan e, a bhiadhadh mhuc.
{77} 16. Agus bu mhiann leis a bhr['u] a li[`o]nadh do na plaosgaibh a
bha na mucan ag itheadh; oir cha d' thug neach air bith dha.
17. Agus un uair a thainig e chuige f['e]in, thubhairt e, Cia l[`i]on
do luchd tuarasdail m'atharsa aig am bheil aran gu leoir agus r' a
sheach-nadh, 'nuair a ta mise a' b[`a]sachadh le gorta!
18. Eiridh me, agus th['e]id omi dh' ionnsuidh m' athar, agus their mi
ris athair, pheaeaich mi 'n aghaidh fhlaitheanais, agus a' d' l[`a]
thairsa.
19. Agus cha 'n fhiu mi tuilleadh gu 'n goirte do mhacsa dhiom: deon mi
mar aon do d' luchd tuarasdail.
_Manks_ (Gaelic).
THE SAME.
11. Va daa vac ec dooinney dy row:
12. As doort y fer saa rish e ayr; Ayr! cur dooys yh ayrn dy chooid ta
my chour. As rheynn eh e chooid orroo.
13. As laghyn ny lurg shen, hymsee yn mac saa ooilley cooidjagh as ghow
eh jurnah gys cheer foddey, as ayns shen hug he jummal er e chooid
liorish baghey rouanagh.
14. As tra va ooilley baarit eihey, dirree genney vooar ayns y cheer
shen; as ren eh toshiaght dy ve ayns feme.
15. As hie eh as daill eh eh-hene rish cummaltagh jeh'n cheer shen; as
hug eshyn eh magh gys ny magheryn echey dy ve son bochilley muickey.
16. As by-vian lesh e volg y lhieeney lesh ny bleaystyn va ny muckyn dy
ee: as cha row dooinney erbee hug eooney da.
17. As tra v'eh er jeet huggey hene, dooyrt eh, Nagh nhimmey sharvaant
failt t'ee my ayr ta nyn saie arran oe, as fooilliagh, as ta mish goll
mow laecal beaghey!
18. Trog-ym orrym, as hem roym gys my ayr, as jir-ym rish, Ayr! ta mee
er n'yannoo peecah noi niau, as kiongoyrt rhyt's.
19. As cha vel mee ny-sodjey feeu dy ve enmyssit dty vac: dell rhym myr
rish fer jeh dty harvaantyr failt.
s. 133. Taken altogether the Celtic tongues form a very remarkable class.
As compared with those of the Gothic stock they are marked by the following
characteristics--
_The scantiness of the declension of Celtic nouns._--In Irish there is a
peculiar form for the dative plural, as _cos_=_foot_, _cos-aibh_=_to feet_
(ped-_ibus_); and beyond this there is nothing else whatever in the way of
_case_, as found in the German, Latin, Greek, and other tongues. Even the
isolated form in question is not found in the Welsh and Breton. Hence {78}
the Celtic tongues are preeminently uninflected in the way of _declension_.
s. 134.--2. _The agglutinate character of their verbal inflections._--In
Welsh the pronouns for _we_, _ye_, and _they_, are _ni_, _chwyi_, and
_hwynt_ respectively. In Welsh also the root=_love_ is _car_. As conjugated
in the plural number this is--
car-_wn_ = am-_amus_.
car-_ych_ = am-_atis_.
car-_ant_ = am-_ant_.
Now the _-wn_, _-ych_, and _-ant_, of the persons of the verbs are the
personal pronouns, so that the inflection is really a verb and a pronoun in
a state of _agglutination_; _i. e._, in a state where the original separate
existence of the two sorts of words is still manifest. This is probably the
case with languages in general. The Celtic, however, has the peculiarity of
exhibiting it in an unmistakable manner; showing, as it were, an inflexion
in the process of formation, and (as such) exhibiting an early stage of
language.
s. 135. _The system of initial mutations._--The Celtic, as has been seen,
is deficient in the ordinary means of expressing case. How does it make up
for this? Even thus. The noun changes its initial letter according to its
relation to the other words of the sentence. Of course this is subject to
rule. As, however, I am only writing for the sake of illustrating in a
general way the peculiarities of the Celtic tongues, the following table,
from Prichard's Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations, is sufficient.
C[^a]r, _a kinsman_.
1. _form_, C[^a]r agos, _a near kinsman_.
2. Ei g[^a]r, _his kinsman_.
3. Ei ch[^a]r, _her kinsman_.
4. Vy ngh[^a]r, _my kinsman_.
T[^a]d, _a father_.
1. _form_, T[^a]d y plentyn, _the child's father_.
2. Ei d[^a]d, _his father_.
3. Ei th[^a]d, _her father_.
4. Vy nh[^a]d, _my father_.
Pen, _a head_.
1. _form_, Pen gwr, _the head of a man_.
2. Ei ben, _his head_.
3. Ei phen, _her head_.
4. Vy mhen, _my head_.
Gw[^a]s, _a servant_.
1. _form_, Gw[^a]s fydhlon, _a faithful servant_.
2. Ei w[^a]s, _his servant_.
{79}
3. Vy ngwas, _my servant_.
Duw, _a god_.
1. _form_, Duw trugarog, _a merciful god_.
2. Ei dhuw, _his god_.
3. Vy nuw, _my god_.
Bara, _bread_.
1. _form_, Bara cann, _white bread_.
2. Ei vara, _his bread_.
3. Vy mara, _my bread_.
Lhaw, _a hand_.
1. _form_, Lhaw wenn, _a white hand_.
2. Ei law, _his hand_.
Mam, _a mother_.
1. _form_, Mam dirion, _a tender mother_.
2. Eivam, _his mother_.
Rhwyd, _a net_.
1. _form_, Rhwyd lawn, _a full net_.
2. Ei rwyd, _his net_.
From the Erse.
S['u]il, _an eye_.
1. _form_, S['u]il.
2. A h['u]il, _his eye_.
Sl['a]inte, _health_.
2. _form_, Do hl['a]inte, _your health_.
s. 136. When we have seen that one of the great characteristics of the
Celtic tongues is to express inflection by initial changes, we may ask how
far the principle of such change is common to the two branches--British or
Gaelic; this and a few other details being quite sufficient to show the
affinity between them.
_Inflections formed by Changes of Initial Consonants._
The changes in Welsh, classified according to the relationship of the
sounds are--
1. From the sharp lenes to the corresponding flats; as _p_ to _b_, _t_ to
_d_, _c_ to _g_. The changes in Irish are the same.
2. From the flat lenes to their corresponding so-called aspirates; as _b_
to _v_, _d_ to _dh_. This is the change in Welsh. In Irish we have the
same, but only as far as _b_ is concerned; the aspirate of _d_ (_dh_) being
wanting in that language. In neither Welsh nor Irish occurs the true
aspirate of _g_. In neither Welsh nor Irish occurs the true aspirate of
_c_; which, being wanting, is replaced by the sound of the _ch_ in the
German _auch_, here spelt _c_.
Now the Welsh grammarians deal with the changes from sharp to flat, and
from lene to aspirate, alike; since, in respect to the grammar of their
language, they are enabled to state that they take place under the same
circumstances. {80} Taken collectively they are called light: and words
wherein _p_ is changed to _b_, and those wherein _b_ is changed to _v_, are
equally said to assume the light sound. This the Welsh express in spelling,
and write _ben_ for _pen_, and _vraint_ for _braint_, &c. In Irish the
arrangement is different. When a so-called aspirate is substituted for a
lene, the word is said to take an aspiration, and _bheul_ is written
_beul_. If, however, the sharp be made flat, the original sound is said to
be eclipsed. In spelling, however, it is preserved; so that _teine_, with
the _t_ changed, is written _dteine_, and pronounced _deine_. With this
view we can now ask how far the change from _p_ to _b_, _t_ to _d_, _c_ to
_g_, _b_ to _v_, _c_ to _c_, takes place in Irish and Welsh under similar
circumstances.
In _Welsh_--after all verbs, except those of the infinitive mood; as
_caravi gaer_ (for _caer_)=_I love a fort_.
In _Irish_--after all verbs, provided that the substantive be masculine; as
_ta me ag gearrad crainn_=_I am cutting (at to cut) a tree_. Here _crainn_
comes from _crainn_. This change in Irish extends only to the change from
lene to aspirate.
In _Welsh_--after the possessive pronouns _thy_, _thine_, _his_, _its_,
_mine_ (but not _my_); as _dy v[^a]r_ (for _b[^a]r_)=_thy wrath_; _ei
vraint_ (from _braint_)=_his privilege_. _N. B._ Although the same word
(_ei_) means _her_, _his_, and _its_, it induces the light change only when
it is either masculine or neuter.
In _Irish_--after the possessive pronouns _my_, _thy_, and _his_. Here the
change is of the first sort only, or an aspiration; as _mo v[`a]s_
(_b[`a]s_)=_my death_; _do cos_ (_cos_)=_thy foot_; _ceann_ (_ceann_)=_his
head_. _N. B._ Although the same word (_a_) means _her_, _his_, and _its_,
it induces the aspirate only when it is either masculine or neuter.
In _Welsh_--the initials of adjectives become light when their substantive
is feminine.
In _Irish_--the initials of adjectives singular, aspirated in the oblique
cases only of the masculine, are aspirated throughout in the feminine.
In _Welsh_--after certain adverbs called formative, used like the English
words _to_, _as_, &c., in the formation of the degrees of nouns, and the
moods of verbs (in other words, {81} after certain particles), initial
sounds become light; as _rhy vycan_ (_bycan_)=_very_ (_over_) _little_; _ni
carav_ (_carav_)=_I do not love_.
In _Irish_--the same, in respect to the change from lene to aspirate; _ro
veag_=_very little_; _ni vualim_ (_bualim_)=_I do not beat_; _do
vuaileas_=_I struck_, &c.
In _Welsh_--initials are light after all prepositions except _in_ and
_towards_.
In _Irish_--the prepositions either eclipse the noun that they govern or
else aspirate it. A Welsh grammarian would say that it made them light.
In _Welsh_--initials of feminines become light after the Articles.
In _Irish_--masculines are aspirated in the genitive and dative singular;
feminines in the nominative and dative. _N.B._ The difference here is less
than it appears to be. The masculine dative is changed, not as a masculine,
but by the effect of the particle _do_, the sign of the dative; the
genitive, perhaps, is changed _ob differentiam_. This being the fact, the
nominative is the only case that is changed _as such_. Now this is done
with the feminines only. The inflection explains this.
_Masc._ _Fem._
_Nom._ an crann=_the tree_. _Nom._ an cos=_the foot_.
_Gen._ an crainn. _Gen._ an cos.
_Dat._ don crann. _Dat._ don cos.
_Acc._ an crainn. _Acc._ an cos.
Such the changes from sharp to flat, and from lene to aspirate. The second
order of changes is remarkable, _viz._ from the mutes to their
corresponding liquids, and, in the case of series _k_, to _ng_. This, in
Welsh, is as follows:--
_Sharp._ _Flat._
_p_ to [19]_m=h_. _b_ to _m_.
_t_ to [19]_n=h_. _d_ to _n_.
_k_ to _ng=h_. _g_ to _ng_.
_e.g._, _nheyrnas_ for _teyrnas_, _ngherdh_ for _cerdh_, _nuw_ for _duw_,
&c.
{82}
In Irish the combinations _m_ + _h_, _n_ + _h_, _ng_ + _h_ are wanting:
_t_, however, under certain conditions, becomes _h_, as _mo high_
(_tigh_)=_my house_. With the unaspirated liquids the change, however,
coincides with that of the Welsh--_ar maile_ (spelt _mbaile_)=_our town_;
_ar nia_ (spelt _ndia_)=_our God_; _ar ngearran_=_our complaint_. These
words come respectively from _baile_, _dia_, _gearran_. To show that this
change takes place in Irish and Welsh under similar circumstances is more
than can be expected; since _dh_ being wanting in Irish, leaves _d_ to be
changed into _n_.
_Inflections formed by changes in the middle of words_.
_Plurals from Singulars_.
_Welsh._ _Irish._
_Singular._ _Plural._ _Singular._ _Plural._
Aber = _a conflux_; ebyr. Ball = _a spot_; baill.
Bardh = _a bard_; beirdh. Cnoc = _a hill_; cnoic.
Br[`a]n = _a crow_; brain. Poll = _a pit_; poil.
Fon = _a staff_; fyn Fonn = _a tune_; foinn.
Maen = _a stone_; mein. Crann = _a tree_; crainn.
G[^u]r = _a man_; g[^u]yr. Fear = _a man_; fir.
&c. &c.
_Inflections formed by addition._
_Plural forms._--When not expressed by a change of vowel, _-d_ (or an
allied sound) both in Welsh and Irish has a plural power; as _merc_,
_merced_; _hydh_, _hydhodh_; _teyrn_, _teyrnedh_=_girls_, _stags_, _kings_;
Welsh:--_gealac_, _gealacad_; _sgolog_, _sgolagad_; _uiseog_,
_uiseogad_=_moons_, _farmers_, _larks_; Irish. In each language there are
plural forms in _-d_.
Also in _-n_, as _dyn_=_a person_, _dynion_=_persons_. In Irish there is
the form _cu_=_a greyhound_; Plural _cuin_. It may be doubted, however,
whether _-n_ is not ejected in the singular rather than added in the
plural.
Also in _-au_, Welsh (as _p['e]n-au_=_heads_), and in _-a_, Irish (as
_cos-a_=_feet_).
In each language there is, in respect to both case and {83} gender, an
equal paucity of inflections. The Irish, however, preserves the
Indo-European dative plural in _b_; as _cos-aiv_=ped-_ibus_.
The ordinals in Welsh are expressed by _-ved_; as _saith_=_seven_,
_seithved_=_seventh_. The ordinals in Irish are expressed by _-vad_, as
_seact_=_seven_, _seact-vad_=_seventh_ (spelt _seachmhadh_).
The terminations _-n_ and _-g_ are diminutive in Welsh; as
_dyn-yn_=_mannikin_, _oen-ig_=_lambkin_. They have the same power in Irish;
as _cnoc-an_=_a hillock_; _duil-eog_=_a leaflet_. In Irish, currently
spoken, there is no inflection for the comparative degrees;--there is,
however, an obsolete form in _-d_, as _glass_, _glaiside_=_green_,
_greener_. In Welsh the true comparative ends in _c_, as _main_=_slender_,
_mainac_=_more slender_. A form, however, exists in _-ed_, meaning
equality, and so implying comparison, _viz._, _mein-ed_=_so slender_.
As expressive of an agent, the termination _-r_ is common to both
languages. Welsh, _mor-[^u]r_=_a seaman_; _telynaur_=_a harpist_; Irish,
_sealg-aire_=_a hunter_; _figead-oir_=_a weaver_.
As expressive of "abounding in," the termination _-c_ (or _-g_) is common
in both languages. Welsh, _boli[^u]ag_=_abounding in belly_;
_toirteac_=_abounding in fruit_. In each language a sound of series _t_, is
equivalent to the English _-ly_. Welsh, _mab-aidh_=_boy-like_. Irish,
_duin-eata_=_manly_.
Of the personal terminations it may be said, that those of both the Irish
and Welsh are those of the other European tongues, and that they coincide
and differ in the same way with those of the Gothic stock: the form in _m_
being the one more constant. For the theory of the personal terminations,
the reader is referred to the Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations, by Dr.
Prichard.
The present notices being indicative of grammatical affinities only, the
glossarial points of likeness between the Welsh and Irish are omitted.
s. 137. The Celtic tongues have lately received especial illustration from
the researches of Mr. Garnett. Amongst other, the two following points are
particularly investigated by him:-- {84}
1. The affinities of the ancient language of Gaul.
2. The affinities of the Pictish language or dialect.
s. 138. _The ancient language of Gaul Cambrian._--The evidence in favour of
the ancient language of Gaul being Cambrian rather than Gaelic, lies in the
following facts:--
The old Gallic glosses are more Welsh than Gaelic.
_a._ _Petorritum_=_a four-wheeled carriage_, from the Welsh,
_peaer_=_four_, and _rhod_=_a wheel_. The Gaelic for _four_ is _ceathair_,
and the Gaelic compound would have been different.
_b._ _Pempedula_, the _cinque-foil_, from the Welsh _pump_=_five_, and
_dalen_=_a leaf_. The Gaelic for _five_ is _cuig_, and the Gaelic compound
would have been different.
_c._ _Candetum_=a measure of 100 feet, from the Welsh _cant_=100. The
Gaelic for _a hundred_ is _cead_, and the Gaelic compound would have been
different.
d. _Epona_=_the goddess of horses_. In the Old Armorican the root
_ep_=_horse_. The Gaelic for a horse is _each_.
_e._ The evidence from the names of geographical localities in Gaul, both
ancient and modern, goes the same way: _Nantuates_, _Nantouin_, _Nanteuil_,
are derived from the Welsh _nant_=_a valley_, a word unknown in Gaelic.
_f._ The evidence of certain French provincial words, which are Welsh and
Armorican rather than Erse or Gaelic.
_g._ An inscription on an ancient Celtic tablet found at Paris, A.D. 1711,
and representing a bull and three birds (cranes), is TARWOS TRI GARANOS.
Now, for the first two names, the Gaelic affords as good an explanation as
the Welsh; the third, however, is best explained by the Welsh.
_Bull_ = _tarw_, Welsh; _tarbh_, Gaelic.
_Three_ = _tri_, Welsh; _tre_, Gaelic.
_Crane_ = _garan_, Welsh; _corr_, Gaelic.
s. 139. _The Pictish most probably Cambrian._--The evidence in favour of
the Pictish being Cambrian rather than Gaelic lies in the following
facts:--
_a._ When St. Columba preached, whose mother-tongue was Irish Gaelic, he
used an interpreter--_Adamnanus apud {85} Colgarum_, 1, 11, c.32. This is a
point of external evidence, and shows the _difference_ between the Pict and
Gaelic. What follows are points of internal evidence, and show the affinity
between the Pict and Welsh.
_b._ A manuscript in the Colbertine library contains a list of Pictish
kings from the fifth century downwards. These names are not only more
Celtic than Gothic, but more Welsh than Gaelic. _Taran_=_thunder_ in Welsh.
_Uven_ is the Welsh _Owen_. The first syllable in _Talorg_ (=_forehead_) is
the _tal_ in _Talhaiarn_=_iron forehead_, _Taliessin_=_splendid forehead_,
Welsh names. _Wrgust_ is nearer to the Welsh _Gwrgust_ than to the Irish
_Fergus_. Finally, _Drust_, _Drostan_, _Wrad_, _Necton_, closely resemble
the Welsh _Trwst_, _Trwstan_, _Gwriad_, _Nwython_. _Cineod_ and _Domhnall_
(_Kenneth_ and _Donnell_), are the only true Erse forms in the list.
_c._ The only Pictish common name extant is the well-known compound _pen
val_, which is in the oldest MS. of Bede _peann fahel_. This means _caput
valli_, and is the name for the eastern termination of the Vallum of
Antoninus. Herein _pen_ is unequivocally Welsh, meaning _head_. It is an
impossible form in Gaelic. _Fal_, on the other hand, is apparently Gaelic,
the Welsh for a _rampart_ being _gwall_. _Fal_, however, occurs in Welsh
also, and means _inclosure_.
The evidence just indicated is rendered nearly conclusive by an
interpolation, apparently of the twelfth century, of the Durham MS. of
Nennius, whereby it is stated that the spot in question was called in
Gaelic _Cenail_. Now Cenail is the modern name _Kinneil_, and it is also a
Gaelic translation of the Pict _pen val_, since _cean_ is the Gaelic for
_head_, and _fhail_ for _rampart_ or _wall_. If the older form were Gaelic,
the substitution, or translation, would have been superfluous.
d. The name of the _Ochil Hills_ in Perthshire is better explained from the
Pict _uchel_=_high_, than from the Gaelic _uasal_.
_e._ Bryneich, the British form of the province Bernicia, is better
explained by the Welsh _bryn_=_ridge_ (_hilly country_), than by any word
in Gaelic.--Garnett, in _Transactions of Philological Society_.
* * * * *
{86}
CHAPTER VII.
THE ANGLO-NORMAN, AND THE LANGUAGES OF THE CLASSICAL STOCK.
s. 140. The languages of Greece and Rome belong to one and the same stock.
The Greek and its dialects, both ancient and modern, constitute the Greek
or Hellenic branch of the Classical stock.
The Latin in all its dialects, the old Italian languages allied to it, and
the modern tongues derived from the Roman, constitute the Latin or Ausonian
branch of the Classical stock.
Now, although the Greek or Hellenic dialects are of secondary importance in
the illustration of the history of the English language, the Latin or
Ausonian elements require a special consideration.
The French element appeared in our language as a result of the battle of
Hastings (A.D. 1066), _perhaps, in a slight degree, at a somewhat earlier
period_.
s. 141. Previous to the notice of the immediate relations of the
Norman-French, or, as it was called after its introduction into England,
Anglo-Norman, its position in respect to the other languages derived from
the Latin may be exhibited.
The Latin language overspread the greater part of the Roman empire. It
supplanted a multiplicity of aboriginal languages; just as the English of
North America _has_ supplanted the aboriginal tongues of the native
Indians, and just as the Russian _is_ supplanting those of Siberia and
Kamskatcha.
Sometimes the war that the Romans carried on against the old inhabitants
was a war of extermination. In this case the original language was
superseded _at once_. In other cases their influence was introduced
gradually. In this case the influence of the original language was greater
and more permanent. {87}
Just as in the United States the English came in contact with an American,
whilst in New Holland it comes in contact with an Australian language, so
was the Latin language of Rome engrafted, sometimes on a Celtic, sometimes
on a Gothic, and sometimes on some other stock. The nature of the original
language must always be borne in mind.
From Italy, its original seat, the Latin was extended in the following
chronological order:--
1. To the Spanish Peninsula; where it overlaid or was engrafted on
languages allied to the present Biscayan (_i.e._, languages of the Iberic
stock), mixed in a degree (scarcely determinable) with Celtic
elements=Celtiberic.
2. To Gaul, or France, where it overlaid or was engrafted on languages of
the Celtic stock. This took place, at least for the more extreme parts of
Gaul, in the time of Julius Caesar; for the more contiguous parts, in the
earlier ages of the Republic.
3. To Dacia and Pannonia; where it overlaid or was engrafted on a language
the stock whereof is undetermined. The introduction of the Latin into Dacia
and Pannonia took place in the time of Trajan.
From (1stly,) the original Latin of Italy, and from the imported Latin, of
(2ndly,) the Spanish Peninsula, (3rdly,) Gaul, (4thly,) Dacia and Pannonia,
we have (amongst others) the following modern languages--1st Italian, 2nd
Spanish and Portuguese, 3rd French, 4th Wallachian. How far these languages
differ from each other is currently known. _One_ essential cause of this
difference is the difference of the original language upon which the Latin
was engrafted.
s. 142. I am not doing too much for the sake of system if I classify the
languages, of which the Italian, French, &c., are the representatives, as
the languages of Germany were classified, _viz._, into divisions.
I. The Spanish and Portuguese are sufficiently like the Italian to be
arranged in a single division. This may conveniently be called the
Hesperian division.
II. The second division is the Transalpine. This comprises the languages of
Gaul, _viz._, the Modern French, the {88} Anglo-Norman, and the Provencal.
It also includes a language not yet mentioned, the Romanese (_Rumonsch_),
or the language of the Grisons, or Graubuenten, of Switzerland.
_Specimen of the Romanese_.
_Luke_ XV. 11.
11. Uen Hum veva dus Filgs:
12. Ad ilg juven da quels schet alg Bab, "Bab mi dai la Part de la
Rauba c' aud' [`a] mi:" ad el parch[`e] or ad els la Rauba.
13. A bucca bears Gis suenter, cur ilg Filg juven vet tut mess ansemel,
scha til[`a] 'l navent en uenna Terra dalunsch: a lou sfiget el tut sia
Rauba cun viver senza spargn.
14. A cur el vet tut sfaig, scha vangit ei en quella Terra uen grond
Fumaz: ad el antschavet a ver basengs.
15. Ad el m[`a], [`a]: sa plid[`e] enn uen Burgeis da quella Terra; a
quel ilg tarmatet or sin s[^e]s Beins a parchirar ils Porcs.
16. Ad el grigiava dad amplanir sieu Venter cun las Criscas ch' ils
Porcs malgiavan; mo nagin lgi deva.
17. Mo el m[`a] en sasez a schet: "Quonts Fumelgs da mieu Bab han
budonza da Pann, a jou miei d' fom!"
18. "Jou vi lavar si, ad ir tier mieu Bab, e vi gir a lgi: 'Bab, jou
hai faig puccau ancunter ilg Tschiel ad avont tei;
19. "'A sunt bucca pli vangonts da vangir numnaus tieu Filg: fai mei
esser sco uen da tes Fumelgs.'"
III. The third division is the Dacian, Pannonian, or Wallachian, containing
the present languages of Wallachia and Moldavia.
In the _Jahrbuecher der Literatur_, June, 1829, specimens are given of two
of its dialects: 1, the Daco-Wallachian, north of the Danube; 2, the
Macedono-Wallachian, south of the Danube. The present specimen varies from
both. It is taken from the New Testament, printed at Smyrna, 1838. The
Dacian division is marked by placing the article after the noun, as
_homul_=_the man_=_homo ille_.
_Luke_ XV. 11.
11. Un om avea do[)i] fec'or[)i].
12. Shi a zis c'el ma[)i] tinr din e[)i] tatlu[)i] su: tat, dm[)i]
partea c'e mi se kade de avucie: shi de a imprcit lor avuciea.
13. Shi nu dup multe zile, adunint toate fec orul c'el ma[)i] tinr, s'a
dus intr 'o car departe, shi akolo a rsipit toat avuciea ca, viecuind
intr dezm[)i]erdr[)i].
{89} 14. Shi keltuind el toate, c'a fkut foamete mare intr' ac'ea car:
shi el a inc'eput a se lipsi.
15. Shi mergina c'a lipit de unul din lkuitori[)i] cri[)i] ac'eia: si
'l a trimis pre el la carinide sale c pask porc'i[)i].
16. Shi doria c 'sh[)i] sature pinctec'ele s[)u] de roshkobele c'e
minka porc'i[)i]; shi nimin[)i] nu [)i] da lu[)i].
17. Iar viind intru sine, a zis: kic[)i] argac[)i] a[)i] tatlu[)i]
mie[)u] sint indestulac[)i] de pi[)i]ne, iar e[)u] p[)i]ei[)u] de
foame.
18. Skula-m-vio[)u], shi m' voi[)u] duc'e la tata mic[)u], shi vio[)u]
zic'e lui:
19. Tat, greshit-am la c'er shi inaintea ta, shi nu mai sint vrednik a
m kema fiul t[)u]; fm ka pre unul din argaci[)i] t[)i].
s. 143. Such is the _general_ view of the languages derived from the Latin,
_i.e._, of the languages of the Latin branch of the Classical stock.
The French languages of the Transalpine division require to be more
minutely exhibited.
Between the provincial French of the north and the provincial French of the
south, there is a difference, at the present day, at least of dialect, and
perhaps of language. This is shown by the following specimens: the first
from the canton of Arras, on the confines of Flanders; the second, from the
department of Var, in Provence. The date of each is A.D. 1807.
I.
_Luke_ XV. 11.
11. Ain homme avoueait deeux garch['e]ons.
12. L'pus jone dit a sain p[`e]re, "Main p[`e]re, baill['e] m'chou qui
doueo me 'r'v'nir ed vous bien," et leu p[`e]re leu partit sain bien.
13. Ain n'sais yur, tro, quate, ch['e]on jours apr[`e]s l'pus ti[`o]
d'cn['e]s d['e]eux ['e]f['e]ans oyant r'cu['e]ll['e] tout s'n'
h['e]ritt'main, s'ot' ainvoye dains n[^a]in pahis gramain loueon, d[^u]
qu'il ['e]chilla tout s'n' argint ain fageant l'braingand dains ch['e]s
cabarets.
14. Abord qu'il o eu tout bu, tout mi['e] et tout dr['e]l['e], il o
v'nu adonc dains ch' pahis lo ainn' famaine cruueelle, et i
c'mainchouait d'avoir fon-ye d' pon-ye (_i.e_. faim de pain).
II.
THE SAME.
11. Un hom['e] avi['e] dous enfans.
12. Lou plus pichoun digu['e]t a son paeir['e], "Moun paeir['e], dounas
mi ce qu[`e] {90} mi reven de vouastr['e] ben;" lou paeir['e] faguet
lou partag['e] de tout ce que pouss['e]davo.
13. Paou de jours apr[`e]s, lou pichoun vend['e]t tout se qu[`e] soun
paeir['e] li avi['e] desamparat, et s'en an['e]t dins un paeis fourco
luench, ount['e] dissip['e]t tout soun ben en debaucho.
14. Quand agu['e]t ton aecaba, uno grosso famino arribet dins aqueou
paeis et, leou, si vegu['e]t reduech [`a] la derniero mis[`e]ro.
Practically speaking, although in the central parts of France the northern
and southern dialects melt each into the other, the Loire may be considered
as a line of demarcation between two languages; the term language being
employed because, in the Middle Ages, whatever may be their real
difference, the northern tongue and the southern tongue were dealt with not
as separate dialects, but as distinct languages--the southern being called
Provencal, the northern Norman-French.
Of these two languages (for so they will in the following pages be called,
for the sake of convenience) the southern or Provencal approaches the
dialects of Spain; the Valencian of Spain and the Catalonian of Spain being
Provencal rather than standard Spanish or Castilian.
The southern French is sometimes called the Langue d'Oc, and sometimes the
Limousin.
It is in the Southern French (Provencal, Langue d'Oc, or Limousin) that we
have the following specimen, _viz_., the Oath of Ludwig, sworn A.D. 842.
_The Oath of the King._
Pro Deo amur et pro Xristian poblo et nostro commun salvament, d'ist di
en avant, in quant Deus savir et podir me dunat, si salvarai eo cist
meon fradre Karlo, et in ajudha et in cadhuna cosa, si cum om per dreit
son fradra salvar dist, in o quid il mi altresi fazet: et ab Ludher nul
plaid nunquam prindrai qui, meon vol, cist meon fradre Karle in damno
sit.
_The Oath of the People._
Si Loduuigs sagrament, que son fradre Karlo jurat, conservat; et
Karlus, meos sendra, de suo part non lo stanit; si io returnar non
l'int pois, ne io, ne neuls cui eo returnar int pois, in nulla ajudha
contra Lodhuwig num li iver.
_The same in Modern French._
Pour de Dieu l'amour et pour du Chr[^e]tien peuple et le notre commun
salut, de ce jour en avant, en quant que Dieu savoir et pouvoir me
donne {91} assur['e]ment sauverai moi ce mon fr[`e]re Charles, et en
aide, et en chacune chose, ainsi comme homme par droit son fr[`e]re
sauver doit, en cela que lui [`a] moi pareillement fera: et avec
Lothaire nul trait['e] ne onques prendrai qui, [`a] mon vouloir, [`a]
ce mien fr[`e]re Charles en dommage soit.
* * * * *
Si Louis le serment, qu'[`a] son fr[`e]re Charles il jure, conserve;
Charles, mon seigneur, de sa part ne le maintient; si je d['e]tourner
ne l'en puis, ni moi, ne nul que je d['e]tourner en puis, en nulle aide
contre Louis ne lui irai.
s. 144. The Norman-French, spoken from the Loire to the confines of
Flanders, and called also the Langue d'Oyl, differed from the Provencal in
(amongst others) the following circumstances.
1. It was of later origin; the southern parts of Gaul having been colonized
at an early period by the Romans.
2. It was in geographical contact, not with the allied languages of Spain,
but with the Gothic tongues of Germany and Holland.
It is the Norman-French that most especially bears upon the history of the
English language.
The proportion of the original Celtic in the present languages of France
has still to be determined. It may, however, be safely asserted, that at a
certain epoch between the first and fifth centuries, the language of Gaul
was more Roman and less Celtic than that of Britain.
SPECIMEN.
_From the Anglo-Norman Poem of Charlemagne._
Un jur fu Karl['e]un al Seint-Denis muster,
Reout prise sa corune, en croiz seignat sun chef,
E ad ceinte sa esp['e]e: li pons fud d'or mer.
Dux i out e demeines e baruns e chevalers.
Li emper[`e]res reguardet la reine sa muillers.
Ele fut ben corun['e]e al plus bel e as meuz.
Il la prist par le poin desuz un oliver,
De sa pleine parole la prist [`a] reisuner:
"Dame, v['e]istes unkes humc nul de desuz ceil
Tant ben s['e]ist esp['e]e ne la corone el chef?
Uncore cunquerrei-jo citez ot mun espeez."
Cele ne fud pas sage, folement respondeit:
{92}
"Emperere," dist-ele, trop vus poez preiser.
"Uncore en sa-jo on ki plus se fait l['e]ger,
Quant il porte corune entre ses chevalers;
Kaunt il met sur sa teste, plus belement lui set."
In the northern French we must recognise not only a Celtic and a Classical,
but also a Gothic element: since Clovis and Charlemagne were no Frenchmen,
but Germans; their language being _High_-Germanic. The High-Germanic
element in French has still to be determined.
In the northern French of _Normandy_ there is a second Gothic element,
_viz._, a Scandinavian element. By this the proper northern French
underwent a further modification.
Until the time of the Scandinavians or Northmen, the present province of
Normandy was called Neustria. A generation before the Norman Conquest, a
Norwegian captain, named in his own country _Rolf_, and in France _Rollo_,
or _Rou_, settled upon the coast of Normandy. What Hengist and the Germans
are supposed to have been in Britain, Rollo and his Scandinavians were in
France. The province took from them its name of Normandy. The _Norwegian_
element in the Norman-French has yet to be determined. Respecting it,
however, the following statements may, even in the present state of the
question, be made:--
1. That a Norse dialect was spoken in Normandy at Bayeux, some time after
the battle of Hastings.
2. That William the Conqueror understood the Norse language.
3. That the names Jersey, Guernsey, and Alderney are as truly Norse names
as Orkney and Shetland.
* * * * *
{93}
CHAPTER VIII.
THE POSITION OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE AS INDO-EUROPEAN.
s. 145. In each of the three preceding chapters a separate stock of
languages has been considered; and it has been shown, in some degree, how
far languages of the same stock differ from, or agree with, each other.
Furthermore, in each stock there has been some particular language that
especially illustrates the English.
In the Gothic stock there has been the Anglo-Saxon; in the Celtic the
Welsh; and in the Classical the Anglo-Norman.
Nevertheless, the importance of the languages of these three divisions is
by no means equal. The Gothic tongues supply the basis of our
investigations. The Celtic afford a few remnants of that language which the
Anglo-Saxon superseded. The Anglo-Norman language exhibits certain
superadded elements.
s. 146. Over and above the Gothic, Celtic, and Classical languages, there
are others that illustrate the English; and some of our commonest
grammatical inflections can be but half understood unless we go beyond the
groups already enumerated.
The Gothic, Celtic (?),[20] and Classical stocks are but subordinate
divisions of a wider class. Each has a sufficient amount of mutual
affinities to be illustrative of each other, and each is contained, along
with two other groups of equal value, under a higher denomination in
philology.
What is the nature of that affinity which connects languages so different
as the Gothic, Celtic (?), and Classical stocks? or what is the amount of
likeness between, _e.g._, the {94} German and Portuguese, the Greek and
Islandic, the Latin and Swedish, the Anglo-Saxon and Italian? And what
other languages are so connected?
What other philological groups are connected with each other, and with the
languages already noticed, by the same affinities which connect the Gothic,
Celtic (?), and Classical stocks? Whatever these languages may be, it is
nearly certain that they will be necessary, on some point or other, for the
full illustration of the English.
As both these questions are points of general, rather than of English,
philology, and as a partial answer may be got to the first from attention
to the degree in which the body of the present work exhibits illustrations
drawn from widely different languages, the following statements are
considered sufficient.
s. 147. The philological denomination of the class which contains the
Gothic, Celtic (?), and Classical divisions, and, along with the languages
contained therein, all others similarly allied, is _Indo-European_; so that
the Gothic, Celtic (?), Classical and certain other languages are
Indo-European.
All Indo-European languages illustrate each other.
The other divisions of the great Indo-European group of languages are as
follows:--
1. The Iranian stock of languages.--This contains the proper Persian
languages of Persia (Iran) in all their stages, the Kurd language, and all
the languages of Asia (whatever they may be) derived from the Zend or
Sanskrit.
2. The Sarmatian stock of languages.--This contains the languages of
Russia, Poland, Bohemia, and of the Slavonian tribes in general. It
contains also the Lithuanic languages, _i.e._, the Lithuanic of Lithuania,
the old Prussian of Prussia (now extinct), and the Lettish or Livonic of
Courland and Livonia.
3, 4, 5. The Classical, Gothic, and Celtic (?) stocks complete the
catalogue of languages undoubtedly Indo-European, and at the same time they
explain the import of the term. Indo-European is the name of a class which
embraces the majority of the languages of _Europe_, and is extended over
{95} Asia as far as _India._ Until the Celtic was shown by Dr. Prichard to
have certain affinities with the Latin, Greek, Slavonic, Lithuanic, Gothic,
Sanskrit, and Zend, as those tongues had with each other, the class in
question was called Indo-_Germanic_; since, up to that time, the Germanic
languages had formed its western limit.
* * * * *
s. 148. _Meaning of the note of interrogation (?) after the word
Celtic._--In a paper read before the Ethnological Society, February 28th,
1849, and published in the Edinburgh Philosophical Magazine, the present
writer has given reasons for considering the claims of the Celtic to be
Indo-European as somewhat doubtful; at the same time he admits, and highly
values, all the facts in favour of its being so, which are to be found in
Prichard's Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations.
He believes, however, that the Celtic can only be brought in the same group
with the Gothic, Slavonic, &c., by _extending_ the value of the class.
"To draw an illustration from the common ties of relationship, as between
man and man, it is clear that a family may be enlarged in two ways.
"_a._ A brother, or a cousin, may be discovered, of which the existence was
previously unknown. Herein the family is enlarged, or increased, by the
_real_ addition of a new member, in a recognised degree of relationship.
"_b._ A degree of relationship previously unrecognised may be recognised,
_i.e._, a family wherein it was previously considered that a
second-cousinship was as much as could be admitted within its pale, may
incorporate third, fourth, or fifth cousins. Here the family is enlarged,
or increased, by a _verbal_ extension of the term.
"Now it is believed that the distinction between increase by the way of
real addition, and increase by the way of verbal extension, has not been
sufficiently attended to. Yet, that it should be more closely attended to,
is evident; since, in mistaking a verbal increase for a real one, the whole
end and aim of classification is overlooked. The publication of Dr.
Prichard's Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations, in 1831, {96} supplied
philologists with the most definite addition that has perhaps, yet been
made to ethnographical philology.
"Ever since then the Celtic has been considered to be Indo-European. Indeed
its position in the same group with the Iranian, Classical,
Slavono-Lithuanic, and Gothic tongues, supplied the reason for substituting
the term Indo-_European_ for the previous one Indo-_Germanic_.
"On the other hand, it seems necessary to admit that _languages are allied
just in proportion as they were separated from the mother-tongue in the
same stage of its development_.
"If so, the Celtic became detached anterior _to the evolution of the
declension of nouns_, whereas the Gothic, Slavonic, Classical and Iranian
languages all separated _subsequent to that stage_."[21]
This, along with other reasons indicated elsewhere,[22] induces the present
writer to admit an affinity between the Celtic and the other so-called
Indo-European tongues, but to deny that it is the same affinity which
connects the Iranian, Classical, Gothic and Slavonic groups.
* * * * *
{97}
PART II.
HISTORY AND ANALYSIS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
--------
CHAPTER I.
HISTORICAL AND LOGICAL ELEMENTS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
s. 149. The Celtic elements of the present English fall into five classes.
1. Those that are of late introduction, and cannot be called original and
constituent parts of the language. Such are (amongst others) the words
_flannel_, _crowd_ (a fiddle), from the Cambrian; and _kerne_ (an Irish
foot-soldier), _galore_ (enough), _tartan_, _plaid_, &c., from the Gaelic
branch.
2. Those that are common to both the Celtic and Gothic stocks, and are
Indo-European rather than either Welsh, or Gaelic, or Saxon. Such (amongst
others) are _brother_, _mother_, in Celtic _brathair_, _mathair_; the
numerals, &c.
3. Those that have come to us from the Celtic, but have come to us through
the medium of another language. Such are _druid_ and _bard_, whose
_immediate_ source is, not the Celtic but, the Latin.
4. Celtic elements of the Anglo-Norman, introduced into England after the
Conquest, and occurring in that language as remains of the original Celtic
of Gaul.
5. Those that have been retained from the original Celtic of the island,
and which form genuine constituents of our language. These fall into three
subdivisions.
_a._ Proper names--generally of geographical localities; as _the Thames_,
_Kent_, &c. {98}
_b._ Common names retained in the provincial dialects of England, but not
retained in the current language; as _gwethall_=_household stuff_, and
_gwlanen_=_flannel_ in Herefordshire.
_c._ Common names retained in the current language.--The following list is
Mr. Garnett's:--
_Welsh_. _English_.
Basgawd _Basket_.
Berfa _Barrow_.
Botwm _Button_.
Br[`a]n _Bran_.
Clwt _Clout_, _Rag_.
Crochan _Crock_, _Crockery_.
Crog _Crook_, _Hook_.
Cwch _Cock_, in _Cock-boat_.
Cwysed _Gusset_.
Cyl, Cyln _Kiln_ (_Kill_, provinc.).
Dantaeth _Dainty_.
Darn _Darn_.
Deentur _Tenter_, in _Tenterhook_.
Fflaim _Fleam_, _Cattle-lancet_.
Fflaw _Flaw_.
Ffynnell (air-hole) _Funnel_.
Gefyn (fetter) _Gyve_.
Greidell _Grid_, in _Gridiron_.
Grual _Gruel_.
Gwald (hem, border) _Welt_.
Gwiced (little door) _Wicket_.
Gwn _Gown_.
Gwyfr _Wire_.
Masg (stitch in netting) _Mesh_.
Mattog _Mattock_.
Mop _Mop_.
Rhail (fence) _Rail_.
Rhasg (slice) _Rasher_.
Rhuwch _Rug_.
Sawduriaw _Solder_.
Syth (glue) _Size_.
Tacl _Tackle_.
s. 150. _Latin of the first period._--Of the Latin introduced by Caesar and
his successors, the few words remaining are those that relate to military
affairs; _viz._ _street_ (_strata_); _coln_ (as in _Lincoln_=_Lindi
colonia_); _cest_ (as in _Gloucester_=_glevae castra_) from _castra_. The
Latin words introduced between the time of Caesar and Hengist may be called
the _Latin of the first period_, or the _Latin of the Celtic period_.
s. 151. _The Anglo-Saxon._--This is not noticed here, because from being
the staple of the present language it is more or less the subject of the
book throughout.
s. 152. _The Danish, or Norse._--The pirates that pillaged Britain, under
the name of Danes, were not exclusively the inhabitants of Denmark. Of the
three Scandinavian nations, the Swedes took the least share, the Norwegians
the greatest {99} in these invasions. Not that the Swedes were less
piratical, but that they robbed elsewhere,--in Russia, for instance, and in
Finland.
The language of the three nations was the same; the differences being
differences of dialect. It was that which is now spoken in Iceland, having
been once common to Scandinavia and Denmark. Whether this was aboriginal in
_Denmark_, is uncertain. In _Scandinavia_ it was imported; the tongue that
it supplanted having been, in all probability, the mother-tongue of the
present Laplandic.
The Danish that became incorporated with our language, under the reign of
Canute and his sons, may be called the direct Danish (Norse or
Scandinavian) element, in contradistinction to the indirect Danish of ss.
144, 155.
The determination of the amount of Danish in English is difficult. It is
not difficult to prove a word _Scandinavian_. We must also show that it is
not German. A few years back the current opinion was against the doctrine
that there was much Danish in England. At present, the tendency is rather
the other way. The following facts are from Mr. Garnett.--Phil. Trans. Vol.
i.
1. The Saxon name of the present town of _Whitby_ in Yorkshire was
_Streoneshalch_. The present name _Whitby_, _Hvitby_, or _White-town_, is
Danish.
2. The Saxon name of the capital of Derbyshire was _Northweortheg_. The
present name is Danish.
3. The termination _-by_=_town_ is Norse.
4. On a monument in Aldburgh church, Holdernesse, in the East Riding of
Yorkshire, referred to the age of Edward the Confessor, is found the
following inscription:--
_Ulf_ het araeran cyrice _for hanum_ and for Gunthara saula.
"Ulf bid rear the church for him and for the soul of Gunthar."
Now, in this inscription, _Ulf_, in opposition to the Anglo-Saxon _wulf_,
is a Norse form; whilst _hanum_ is a Norse dative, and by no means an
Anglo-Saxon one.--Old Norse _hanum_, Swedish _honom_.
5. The use of _at_ for _to_ as the sign of the infinitive mood {100} is
Norse, not Saxon. It is the regular prefix in Icelandic, Danish, Swedish,
and Feroic. It is also found in the northern dialects of the Old English,
and in the particular dialect of Westmoreland at the present day.
6. The use of _sum_ for _as_; _e.g._--_swa sum_ we forgive oure detturs.
7. Isolated words in the northern dialects are Norse rather than Saxon.
_Provincial._ _Common Dialect._ _Norse._
Braid _Resemble_ Br[oa]as, _Swed_.
Eldin _Firing_ Eld, _Dan_.
Force _Waterfall_ Fors, _D. Swed_.
Gar _Make_ Goera, _Swed_.
Gill _Ravine_ Gil, _Iceland_.
Greet _Weep_ Grata, _Iceland_.
Ket _Carrion_ Kioed=Flesh, _Dan_.
Lait _Seek_ Lede, _Dan_.
Lathe _Barn_ Lade, _Dan_.
Lile _Little_ Lille, _Dan_.
s. 153. _Roman of the Second Period._--Of the Latin introduced under the
Christianised Saxon sovereigns, many words are extant. They relate chiefly
to ecclesiastical matters, just as the Latin of the Celtic period bore upon
military affairs.--_Mynster_, a minster, _monasterium_; _portic_, a porch,
_porticus_; _cluster_, a cloister, _claustrum_; _munuc_, a monk,
_monachus_; _bisceop_, a bishop, _episcopus_; _arcebisceop_, archbishop,
_archiepiscopus_; _sanct_, a saint, _sanctus_; _profost_, a provost,
_propositus_; _pall_, a pall, _pallium_; _calic_, a chalice, _calix_;
_candel_, a candle, _candela_; _psalter_, a psalter, _psalterium_;
_maesse_, a mass, _missa_; _pistel_, an epistle, _epistola_; _praedic-ian_,
to preach, _praedicare_; _prof-ian_, to prove, _probare_.
The following are the names of foreign plants and animals:--_camell_, a
camel, _camelus_; _ylp_, elephant, _elephas_; _ficbeam_, fig-tree, _ficus_;
_feferfuge_, feverfew, _febrifuga_; _peterselige_, parsley, _petroselinum_.
Others are the names of articles of foreign origin, as _pipor_, pepper,
_piper_; _purpur_, purple, _purpura_; _pumicstan_, pumice-stone, _pumex_.
{101}
The above-given list is from Guest's English Rhythms (B. iii. c. 3). It
constitutes that portion of the elements of our language which may be
called the Latin of the second, or Saxon period.
s. 154. _The Anglo-Norman element._--For practical purposes we may say that
the French or Anglo-Norman element appeared in our language after the
battle of Hastings, A.D. 1066.
Previous, however, to that period we find notices of intercourse between
the two countries.
1. The residence in England of Louis Outremer.
2. Ethelred II. married Emma, daughter of Richard Duke of Normandy, and the
two children were sent to Normandy for education.
3. Edward the Confessor is particularly stated to have encouraged French
manners and the French language in England.
4. Ingulphus of Croydon speaks of his own knowledge of French.
5. Harold passed some time in Normandy.
6. The French article _la_, in the term _la Drove_, occurs in a deed of
A.D. 975.--See Ranouard, _Journal des Savans_, 1830.
The chief Anglo-Norman elements of our language are the terms connected
with the feudal system, the terms relating to war and chivalry, and a great
portion of the law terms--_duke_, _count_, _baron_, _villain_, _service_,
_chivalry_, _warrant_, _esquire_, _challenge_, _domain_, &c.
s. 155. The Norwegian, Danish, Norse, or Scandinavian element of the
Anglo-Norman (as in the proper names _Guernsey_, _Jersey_, _Alderney_, and
perhaps others) constitutes the _indirect_ Scandinavian element of the
English.
s. 156. _Latin of the Third Period._--This means the Latin which was
introduced between the battle of Hastings and the revival of literature. It
chiefly originated with the monks, in the universities, and, to a certain
extent, in the courts of law. It must be distinguished from the _indirect_
Latin introduced as part and parcel of the Anglo-Norman. It has yet to be
accurately analyzed. {102}
_Latin of the Fourth Period._--This means the Latin which has been
introduced between the revival of literature and the present time. It has
originated in the writings of learned men in general, and is distinguished
from that of the previous periods by--
1. Being less altered in form--
2. Preserving, in the case of substantives, in many cases its original
inflections; _axis_, _axes_; _basis_, _bases_--
3. Relating to objects and ideas for which the increase of the range of
science in general has required a nomenclature.
s. 157. _Greek._--Words derived _directly_ from the Greek are in the same
predicament as the Latin of the third period--_phaenomenon_, _phaenomena_;
_criterion_, _criteria_, &c.; words which are only _indirectly_ of Greek
origin, being considered to belong to the language from which they were
immediately introduced into the English. Such are _deacon_, _priest_, &c.,
introduced through the Latin; thus a word like _church_ proves no more in
regard to a Greek element in English, than the word _abbot_ proves in
respect to a Syrian one.
s. 158. The Latin of the fourth period and the Greek agree in retaining, in
many cases, the Latin or Greek inflexions rather than adopting the English
ones; in other words, they agree in being but _imperfectly incorporated_.
The phaenomenon of imperfect incorporation (an important one) is reducible
to the following rules:--
1. That it has a direct ratio to the date of the introduction, _i.e._, the
more recent the word the more likely it is to retain its original
inflexion.
2. That it has a relation to the number of meanings belonging to the words:
thus, when a single word has two meanings, the original inflexion expresses
one, the English inflexion another--_genius_, _genii_, often (_spirits_),
_geniuses_ (_men of genius_).
3. That it occurs with substantives only, and that only in the expression
of number. Thus, although the plural of substantives like _axis_ and
_genius_ are Latin, the possessive cases are English. So also are the
degrees of comparison, for {103} adjectives like _circular_, and the
tenses, &c. for verbs, like perambulate.
s. 159. The following is a list of the chief Latin substantives, introduced
during the latter part of the fourth period; and, preserving the _Latin_
plural forms--
FIRST CLASS.
_Words wherein the Latin Plural is the same as the Latin Singular._
(_a_) _Sing._ _Plur._ (_b_) _Sing._ _Plur._
|
Apparatus apparat_us_ | Caries cari_es_
Hiatus hiat_us_ | Congeries congeri_es_
Impetus impet_us_. | Series seri_es_
| Species speci_es_
| Superficies superfici_es_.
SECOND CLASS.
_Words wherein the Latin Plural is formed from the Latin Singular by
changing the last Syllable._
(_a_).--_Where the Singular termination _-a_ is changed in the Plural into
_-ae__:--
_Sing._ _Plur._ | _Sing._ _Plur._
|
Formul_a_ formul_ae_ | Nebul_a_ nebul_ae_
Lamin_a_ lamin_ae_ | Scori_a_ scori_ae_.
Larv_a_ larv_ae_ |
(_b_).--_Where the singular termination _-us_ is changed in the Plural into
_-i__:--
_Sing._ _Plur._ | _Sing._ _Plur._
|
Calcul_us_ calcul_i_ | Polyp_us_ polyp_i_
Coloss_us_ coloss_i_ | Radi_us_ radi_i_
Convolvul_us_ convolvul_i_ | Ranuncul_us_ ranuncul_i_
Foc_us_ foc_i_ | Sarcophag_us_ sarcophag_i_
Geni_us_ geni_i_ | Schirrh_us_ schirrh_i_
Mag_us_ mag_i_ | Stimul_us_ stimul_i_
Nautil_us_ nautil_i_ | Tumul_us_ tumul_i_.
Oesophag_us_ oesophag_i_ |
(_c_).--_Where the Singular termination _-um_ is changed in the Plural into
_-a__:--
_Sing._ _Plur._ | _Sing._ _Plur._
|
Animalcul_um_ animalcul_a_ | Mausole_um_ mausole_a_
Arcan_um_ arcan_a_ | Medi_um_ medi_a_
Collyri_um_ collyri_a_ | Memorand_um_ memorand_a_
Dat_um_ dat_a_ | Menstru_um_ menstru_a_
Desiderat_um_ desiderat_a_ | Moment_um_ moment_a_
{104}
Effluvi_um_ effluvi_a_ | Premi_um_ premi_a_
Empori_um_ empori_a_ | Scholi_um_ scholi_a_
Encomi_um_ encomi_a_ | Spectr_um_ spectr_a_
Errat_um_ errat_a_ | Specul_um_ specul_a_
Gymnasi_um_ gymnasi_a_ | Strat_um_ strat_a_
Lixivi_um_ lixivi_a_ | Succedane_um_ succedanea.
Lustr_um_ lustr_a_ |
(_d_).--_Where the singular termination _-is_ is changed in the Plural into
_-es__:--
_Sing._ _Plur._ | _Sing._ _Plur._
|
Amanuens_is_ amanuens_es_ | Ellips_is_ ellips_es_
Analys_is_ analys_es_ | Emphas_is_ emphas_es_
Antithes_is_ antithes_es_ | Hypothes_is_ hypothes_es_
Ax_is_ ax_es_ | Oas_is_ oas_es_
Bas_is_ bas_es_ | Parenthes_is_ parenthes_es_
Cris_is_ cris_es_ | Synthes_is_ synthes_es_
Diaeres_is_ diaeres_es_ | Thes_is_ thes_es_.
THIRD CLASS.
_Words wherein the Plural is formed by inserting _-e_ between the last two
sounds of the singular, so that the former number always contains a
syllable more than the latter_:--
_Sing_. _Plur_.
Apex _sounded_ apec-_s_ apic_es_
Appendix -- appendic-_s_ appendic_es_
Calix -- calic-_s_ calic_es_
Cicatrix -- cicatric-_s_ cicatric_es_
Helix -- helic-_s_ helic_es_
Index -- indec-_s_ indic_es_
Radix -- radic-_s_ radic_es_
Vertex -- vertec-_s_ vertic_es_
Vortex -- vortec-_s_ vortic_es_.
In all these words the _c_ of the singular number is sounded as _k_, of the
plural as _s_.
s. 160. The following is a list of the chief Greek substantives lately
introduced, and preserving the _Greek_ plural forms--
FIRST CLASS.
_Words where the singular termination _-on_ is changed in the plural into
_-a__:--
_Sing._ _Plur._
Apheli_on_ apheli_a_
Periheli_on_ periheli_a_
Automat_on_ automat_a_
Criteri_on_ criteri_a_
Ephemer_on_ ephemer_a_
Phaenomen_on_ phaenomen_a_.
{105}
SECOND CLASS.
_Words where the plural is formed from the original root by adding either
_-es_ or _-a_, but where the singular rejects the last letter of the
original root._
_Plurals in _-es__:--
_Original root._ _Plur._ _Sing._
Apsid- apsid_es_ apsis
Cantharid- cantharid_es_ cantharis
Chrysalid- chrysalid_es_ chrysalis
Ephemerid- ephemerid_es_ ephemeris
Tripod- tripod_es_ tripos.
_Plurals in_ -a:--
_Original root._ _Plur._ _Sing._
Dogmat- dogmat_a_ dogma
Lemmat- lemmat_a_ lemma
Miasmat- miasmat_a_ miasma[23]
s. 161. _Miscellaneous elements._--Of miscellaneous elements we have two
sorts; those that are incorporated in our language, and are currently
understood (_e.g._, the Spanish word _sherry_, the Arabic word _alkali_,
and the Persian word _turban_), and those that, even amongst the educated,
are considered strangers. Of this latter kind (amongst many others) are the
Oriental words _hummum_, _kaftan_, _gul_, &c.
Of the currently understood miscellaneous elements of the English language,
the most important are from the French; some of which agree with those of
the Latin of the fourth period, and the Greek in preserving the _French_
plural forms--as _beau_, _beaux_, _billets-doux_.
_Italian._--Some words of Italian origin do the same: as _virtuoso_,
_virtuosi_.
_Hebrew._--The Hebrew words, _cherub_ and _seraph_ do the same; the form
_cherub-im_, and _seraph-im_, being not only plurals but Hebrew plurals.
Beyond the words derived from these five languages, none form their plurals
other than after the English method, _i.e._, in _-s_: as _waltzes_, from
the German word _waltz_.
s. 162. The extent to which a language, which like the English, at one and
the same time requires names for many objects, comes in contact with the
tongues of half the world, {106} and has, moreover, a great power of
incorporating foreign elements, derives fresh words from varied sources,
may be seen from the following incomplete notice of the languages which
have, in different degrees, supplied it with new terms.
_Arabic._--Admiral, alchemist, alchemy, alcohol, alcove, alembic, algebra,
alkali, assassin, from a paper of Mr. Crawford, read at the British
Association, 1849.
_Persian._--Turban, caravan, dervise, &c.--_Ditto._
_Turkish._--Coffee, bashaw, divan, scimitar, janisary, &c.--_Ditto._
_Hindu languages._--Calico, chintz, cowrie, curry, lac, muslin, toddy,
&c.--_Ditto._
_Chinese._--Tea, bohea, congou, hyson, soy, nankin, &c.--_Ditto._
_Malay._--Bantam (fowl), gamboge, rattan, sago, shaddock, &c.--_Ditto._
_Polynesian._--Taboo, tattoo.--_Ditto._
_Tungusian_, or some similar Siberian language.--Mammoth, the bones of
which are chiefly from the banks of the Lena.
_North American Indian._--Squaw, wigwam, pemmican.
_Peruvian._--Charki=prepared meat; whence _jerked_ beef.
_Caribbean._--Hammock.
_Ancient Carian._--Mausoleum.
s. 163. In s. 157 a distinction is drawn between the _direct_ and
_indirect_, the latter leading to the _ultimate origin_ of words.
Thus a word borrowed into the English from the French, might have been
borrowed into the French from the Latin, into the Latin from the Greek,
into the Greek from the Persian, &c., and so _ad infinitum_.
The investigation of this is a matter of literary curiosity rather than any
important branch of philology.
The ultimate known origin of many common words sometimes goes back to a
great date, and points to extinct languages--
_Ancient Nubian (?)_--Barbarous.
_Ancient Egyptian._--Ammonia.
_Ancient Syrian._--Cyder.
_Ancient Syrian._--Pandar.
{107}
_Ancient Lydian._--Maeander.
_Ancient Persian._--Paradise.
s. 164. Again, a word from a given language may be introduced by more lines
than one; or it may be introduced twice over; once at an earlier, and again
at a later period. In such a case its form will, most probably, vary; and,
what is more, its meaning as well. Words of this sort may be called
_di-morphic_, their _di-morphism_, having originated in one of two
reasons--a difference of channel, or a difference of date. Instances of the
first are, _syrup_, _sherbet_, and _shrub_, all originally from the
_Arabic_, _srb_; but introduced differently, viz., the first through the
Latin, the second through the Persian, and the third through the Hindoo.
Instances of the second are words like _minster_, introduced in the
Anglo-Saxon, as contrasted with _monastery_, introduced during the
Anglo-Norman period. By the proper application of these processes, we
account for words so different in present form, yet so identical in origin,
as _priest_ and _presbyter_, _episcopal_ and _bishop_, &c.
s. 165. _Distinction._--The history of the languages that have been spoken
in a particular country, is a different subject from the history of a
particular language. The history of the languages that have been spoken in
the United States of America, is the history of _Indian_ languages. The
history of the languages of the United States is the history of the
Germanic language.
s. 166. _Words of foreign simulating a vernacular origin._--These may occur
in any mixed language whatever; they occur, however, oftener in the English
than in any other.
Let a word be introduced from a foreign language--let it have some
resemblance in sound to a real English one: lastly, let the meanings of the
two words be not absolutely incompatible. We may then have a word of
foreign origin taking the appearance of an English one. Such, amongst
others, are _beef-eater_, from _boeuffetier_; _sparrow-grass_, _asparagus_;
_Shotover_, _Chateau vert_;[24] _Jerusalem_, _Girasole_;[25] _Spanish {108}
beefeater_, _Spina befida_; _periwig_, _peruke_; _runagate_, _renegade_;
_lutestring_, _lustrino_;[26] _O yes_, _Oyez!_ _ancient_, _ensign_.[27]
_Dog-cheap._--This has nothing to do with _dogs_. The first syllable is
_god_=_good_ transposed, and the second the _ch-p_ in _chapman_
(=_merchant_) _cheap_, and _East-cheap_. In Sir J. Mandeville, we find
_god-kepe_=_good bargain_.
_Sky-larking._--Nothing to do with _larks_ of any sort; still less the
particular species, _alauda arvensis_. The word improperly spelt _l-a-r-k_,
and banished to the slang regions of the English language, is the
Anglo-Saxon _l['a]c_=_game_, or _sport_; wherein the _a_ is sounded as in
_father_ (not as in _farther_). _Lek_=_game_, in the present Scandinavian
languages.
_Zachary Macaulay_=_Zumalacarregui_; _Billy Ruffian_=_Bellerophon_; _Sir
Roger Dowlass_=_Surajah Dowlah_, although so limited to the common
soldiers, and sailors who first used them, as to be exploded vulgarisms
rather than integral parts of the language, are examples of the same
tendency towards the irregular accommodation of misunderstood foreign
terms.
_Birdbolt._--An incorrect name for the _gadus lota_, or _eel-pout_, and a
transformation of _barbote_.
_Whistle-fish._--The same for _gadus mustela_, or _weazel-cod_.
_Liquorice_=_glycyrrhiza_.
_Wormwood_=_weremuth_, is an instance of a word from the same language, in
an antiquated shape, being equally transformed with a word of really
foreign origin.
s. 167. Sometimes the transformation of the _name_ has engendered a change
in the object to which it applies, or, at least, has evolved new ideas in
connection with it. How easy for a person who used the words _beef-eater_,
_sparrow-grass_, or _Jerusalem_, to believe that the officers designated by
the former either eat or used to eat more beef than other people (or at
least had an allowance of that viand); that the second word was the name
for a _grass_, or herb of which _sparrows_ were fond; and that _Jerusalem_
artichokes came from Palestine.
What has just been supposed is sometimes a real {109} occurrence. To
account for the name _Shotover-hill_, I have heard that Little John _shot
over_ it. Here the confusion in order to set itself right, breeds a
fiction. Again, in chess, the piece now called the _queen_, was originally
the _elephant_. This was in Persian, _ferz_. In French it became _vierge_,
which, in time, came to be mistaken for a derivative, and _virgo_=_the
virgin_, _the lady_, _the queen_.
s. 168. Sometimes, where the form of a word in respect to its _sound_ is
not affected, a false spirit of accommodation introduces an unetymological
_spelling_; as _frontispiece_[28] from _frontispecium_, _sover_eig_n_, from
_sovrano_, _colle_a_gue_ from _collega_, _lant_h_orn_ (old orthography)
from _lanterna_.
The value of forms like these consists in their showing that language is
affected by false etymologies as well as by true ones.
* * * * *
s. 169. In _lambkin_ and _lancet_, the final syllables (_-kin_ and _-et_)
have the same power. They both express the idea of smallness or
diminutiveness. These words are but two out of a multitude, the one
(_lamb_) being of Saxon, the other (_lance_) of Norman origin. The same is
the case with the superadded syllables: _-kin_ is Saxon; _-et_ Norman. Now
to add a Saxon termination to a Norman word, or _vice vers[^a]_, is to
corrupt the English language.
This leads to some observations respecting--
s. 170. _Introduction of new words_--_Hybridism._--Hybridism is a term
derived from _hybrid-a_, _a mongrel_; a Latin word _of Greek extraction_.
The terminations _-ize_ (as in _criticize_), _-ism_ (as in _criticism_),
_-ic_ (as in _comic_), these, amongst many others, are Greek terminations.
To add them to words of other than of Greek origin is to be guilty of
hybridism.
The terminations _-ble_ (as in _penetrable_), _-bility_ (as in
_penetrability_, _-al_ (as in _parental_)--these, amongst many others, are
Latin terminations. To add them to words of other than of Latin origin is
to be guilty of hybridism.
{110}
Hybridism is the commonest fault that accompanies the introduction of new
words. The hybrid additions to the English language are most numerous in
works on science.
It must not, however, be concealed that several well established words are
hybrid; and that, even in the writings of the classical Roman authors,
there is hybridism between the Latin and the Greek.
The etymological view of every word of foreign origin is, not that it is
put together in England, but that it is brought whole from the language to
which it is vernacular. Now no derived word can be brought whole from a
language unless, in that language, all its parts exist. The word
_penetrability_ is not derived from the English word _penetrable_, by the
addition of _-ty_. It is the Latin word _penetrabilitas_ imported.
_In derived words all the parts must belong to one and the same language_,
or, changing the expression, _every derived word must have a possible form
in the language from which it is taken_. Such is the rule against
Hybridism.
s. 171. A true word sometimes takes the appearance of a hybrid without
really being so. The _-icle_, in _icicle_, is apparently the same as the
_-icle_ in _radicle_. Now, as _ice_ is Gothic, and _-icle_ classical,
hybridism is simulated. _Icicle_, however, is not a derivative but a
compound; its parts being _is_ and _gicel_, both Anglo-Saxon words.
s. 172. _On Incompletion of the Radical._--Let there be in a given language
a series of roots ending in _-t_, as _saemat_. Let a euphonic influence
eject the _-t_, as often as the word occurs in the nominative case. Let the
nominative case be erroneously considered to represent the root, or
radical, of the word. Let a derivative word be formed accordingly, _i.e._,
on the notion that the nominative form and the radical form coincide. Such
a derivative will exhibit only a part of the root; in other words, the
radical will be incomplete.
Now all this is what actually takes place in words like _haemo-ptysis_
(_spitting of blood_), _sema-phore_ (_a sort of telegraph_). The Greek
imparisyllabics eject a part of the root in the nominative case; the
radical forms being _haemat-_ and _saemat-_, not _haem-_ and _saem-_. {111}
Incompletion of the radical is one of the commonest causes of words being
coined faultily. It must not, however, be concealed, that even in the
classical writers, we have (in words like [Greek: distomos]) examples of
incompletion of the radical.
* * * * *
s. 173. The preceding chapters have paved the way for a distinction between
the _historical_ analysis of a language, and the _logical_ analysis of one.
Let the present language of England (for illustration's sake only) consist
of 40,000 words. Of these let 30,000 be Anglo-Saxon, 5,000 Anglo-Norman,
100 Celtic, 10 Latin of the first, 20 Latin of the second, and 30 Latin of
the third period, 50 Scandinavian, and the rest miscellaneous. In this case
the language is considered according to the historical origin of the words
that compose it, and the analysis (or, if the process be reversed, the
synthesis) is an historical analysis.
But it is very evident that the English, or any other language, is capable
of being contemplated in another view, and that the same number of words
may be very differently classified. Instead of arranging them according to
the languages whence they are derived, let them be disposed according to
the meanings that they convey. Let it be said, for instance, that out of
40,000 words, 10,000 are the names of natural objects, that 1000 denote
abstract ideas, that 1000 relate to warfare, 1000 to church matters, 500 to
points of chivalry, 1000 to agriculture, and so on through the whole. In
this case the analysis (or, if the process be reversed, the synthesis) is
not historical but logical; the words being classed not according to their
origin, but according to their meaning.
Now the logical and historical analysis of a language generally in some
degree coincides, as may be seen by noticing the kind of words introduced
from the Anglo-Norman, the Latin of the fourth period, and the Arabic.
* * * * *
{112}
CHAPTER II.
THE RELATION OF THE ENGLISH TO THE ANGLO-SAXON, AND THE STAGES OF THE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
s. 174. The relation of the present English to the Anglo-Saxon is that of a
_modern_ language to an _ancient_ one: the words _modern_ and _ancient_
being used in a defined and technical sense.
Let the word _smidhum_ illustrate this. _Smidhum_, the dative plural of
_smidh_, is equivalent in meaning to the English _to smiths_, or to the
Latin _fabris_. _Smidhum_ however, is a single Anglo-Saxon word (a
substantive, and nothing more); whilst its English equivalent is two words
_i.e._, a substantive with the addition of a preposition). The letter _s_,
in _smiths_ shows that the word is plural. The _-um_, in _smidhum_, does
this and something more. It is the sign of the _dative case_ plural. The
_-um_ in _smidhum_, is the part of a word. The preposition to is a separate
word with an independent existence. _Smidhum_ is the radical syllable
_smidh_, _plus_ the subordinate inflectional syllable _-um_, the sign of
the dative case. _To smiths_ is the substantive _smiths_, _plus_ the
preposition _to_, equivalent in power to the sign of a dative case, but
different from it in form. As far, then, as the word just quoted is
concerned, the Anglo-Saxon differs from the English thus. It expresses a
given idea by a modification of the form of the root, whereas the modern
English denotes the same idea by the addition of a preposition. The Saxon
inflection is superseded by a combination of words.
The part that is played by the preposition with nouns, is played by the
auxiliaries (_have_, _be_, &c.) with verbs.
The sentences in italics are mere variations of the same general statement.
(1.) _The earlier the stage of a given {113} language the greater the
amount of its inflectional forms, and the later the stage of a given
language, the smaller the amount of them._ (2.) _As languages become modern
they substitute prepositions and auxiliary verbs for cases and tenses._
(3.) _The amount of inflection is in the inverse proportion to the amount
of prepositions and auxiliary verbs._ (4.) _In the course of time languages
drop their inflection and substitute in its stead circumlocutions by means
of prepositions, &c. The reverse never takes place._ (5.) _Given two modes
of expression, the one inflectional _(smidhum)_, the other circumlocutional
_(to smiths)_, we can state that the first belongs to an early, the second
to a late, stage of language._
The present chapter, then, showing the relation of the English to the
Anglo-Saxon, shows something more. It exhibits the general relation of a
modern to an ancient language. As the English is to the Anglo-Saxon, so are
the Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian, to the old Norse; so also the Modern
High German to the Moeso-Gothic; so the Modern Dutch of Holland to the Old
Frisian; so, moreover, amongst the languages of a different stock, are the
French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanese and Wallachian to the Latin,
and the Romaic to the Ancient Greek.
s. 175. Contrasted with the English, but contrasted with it only in those
points where the ancient tongue is compared with the modern one, the
Anglo-Saxon has the following differences.
NOUNS.
_Of Gender._--In Anglo-Saxon there are three genders, the masculine, the
feminine, and the neuter. With _adjectives_ each gender has its peculiar
declension; with _substantives_ there are also appropriate terminations,
but only to a certain degree; _e.g._, of words ending in _-a_ (_nama_, a
name; _cuma_, a guest), it may be stated that they are always masculine; of
words in _-u_ (_sunu_, a son; _gifu_, a gift), that they are never neuter;
in other words, that they are either mas. or fem.
The definite article varies with the gender of its substantive; _thaet
eage_, the eye; _se steorra_, the star; _seo tunge_, the tongue. {114}
_Of Number._--The plural form in _-en_ (as in _oxen_), rare in English, was
common in Anglo-Saxon. It was the regular termination of a whole
declension; _e.g._, _e['a]gan_, eyes; _steorran_, stars; _tungan_, tongues.
Besides this, the Anglo-Saxons had forms in _-u_ and _-a_, as _ricu_,
kingdoms; _gifa_, gifts. The termination _-s_, current in the present
English was confined to a single gender and to a single declension, as
_endas_, ends; _dagas_, days; _smidhas_, smiths.
_Of Case._--Of these the Saxons had, for their substantives, at least
three; viz. the nominative, dative, genitive. With the pronouns and
adjectives there was a true accusative form; and with a few especial words
an ablative or instrumental one. _Smidh_, a smith; _smidhe_, to a smith;
_smidhes_, of a smith. Plural, _smidhas_, smiths; _smidhum_, to smiths;
_smidha_, of smiths: _he_, he; _hine_, him; _him_, to him; _his_, his;
_se_, the; _tha_, the; _thy_, with the; _tham_, to the; _thaes_, of the.
Of the dative in _-um_, the word _whilom_ (_at times_, _at whiles_) is a
still extant and an almost isolated specimen.
_Of Declension._--In _Anglo-Saxon_ it is necessary to determine the
termination of a substantive. There is the weak, or simple declension for
words ending in a vowel (as _eage_, _steorra_, _tunga_), and the strong, or
complex declension for words ending in a consonant (_smidh_, _spraec_,
_le['a]f_). The letters _i_ and _u_ are dealt with as semivowels,
semivowels being dealt with as consonants; so that words like _sunu_ and
_gifu_ belong to the same declension as _smidh_ and _spr['ae]c_.
That the form of adjectives varies with their definitude or indefinitude,
has been seen from s. 93: definite adjectives following the inflection of
the simple; indefinite ones that of the complex declension.
The detail of the Anglo-Saxon declension may be collected from ss. 83-89.
The Anglo-Saxon inflection of the participles present is remarkable. With
the exception of the form for the genitive plural definite (which, instead
of _-ena_, is _-ra_,) they follow the declension of the adjectives. From
the masculine substantives formed from them, and denoting the agent, they
may be distinguished by a difference of inflection. {115}
_Participle._ _Substantive._
Wegferende=_Wayfaring_. Wegferend=_Wayfarer_.
_Sing. Nom._ Wegferende Wegferend.
_Acc._ Wegferendne Wegferend.
_Abl._ Wegferende Wegferende.
_Dat._ Wegferendum Wegferende.
_Gen._ Wegferendes Wegferendes.
_Plur. Nom._ Wegferende Wegferendas.
_Dat._ Wegferendum Wegferendum.
_Gen._ Wegferendra Wegferenda.
_Pronouns Personal._--Of the pronominal inflection in Saxon, the character
may be gathered from the chapter upon pronouns. At present, it may be
stated that, like the Moeso-Gothic and the Icelandic, the Anglo-Saxon
language possessed for the first two persons a _dual_ number; inflected as
follows:
_1st Person._ _2nd Person._
_Nom._ Wit _We two._ _Nom._ Git _Ye two._
_Acc._ Unc _Us two._ _Acc._ Inc _You two._
_Gen._ Uncer _Of us two._ _Gen._ Incer _Of you two._
Besides this, the demonstrative, possessive, and relative pronouns, as well
as the numerals _twa_ and _threo_, had a fuller declension than they have
at present.
VERBS.
_Mood._--The subjunctive mood that in the present English (with the
exception of the conjugation of the verb substantive) differs from the
indicative only in the third person singular, was in Anglo-Saxon inflected
as follows:
_Indicative Mood._
_Pres. Sing._ 1. Lufige. _Plur._ 1. }
2. Lufast. 2. } Lufiadh.
3. Lufadh. 3. }
_Subjunctive Mood._
_Pres. Sing._ 1.} _Plur._ 1. }
2.} Lufige. 2. } Lufion.
3.} 3. }
The Saxon infinitive ended in _-an_ (_lufian_), and besides this there was
a so-called gerundial form, to _lufigenne_. {116}
_Tense._--In regard to tense, the Anglo-Saxon coincided with the English.
The present language has two tenses, the present and the past; the Saxon
had no more. This past tense the modern English forms either by addition
(_love_, _loved_), or by change (_fall_, _fell_). So did the Anglo-Saxons.
_Number and Person._--In the present English the termination -_eth_
(_moveth_) is antiquated. In Anglo-Saxon it was the only form recognized.
In English the plural number (indicative as well as subjunctive) has no
distinguishing inflection. It was not so in Anglo-Saxon. There, although
the _persons_ were identical in form, the _numbers_ were distinguished by
the termination -_adh_ for the indicative, and -_n_ for the subjunctive.
(_See above._) For certain forms in the second conjugation, see the remarks
on the forms _drunk_ and _drank_, in Part IV.
Such are the chief points in the declension of nouns and the conjugation of
verbs that give a difference of character between the ancient Anglo-Saxon
and the modern English: and it has already been stated that the difference
between the New and the Old German, the Dutch and the Frisian, the Italian,
&c., and the Latin, the Romaic and the Greek, &c., are precisely similar.
How far two languages pass with equal rapidity from their ancient to their
modern, from their inflected to their uninflected state (in other words,
how far all languages alter at the same rate), is a question that will be
noticed elsewhere. At present, it is sufficient to say, that (just as we
should expect _[`a] priori_) languages do _not_ alter at the same rate.
Akin to the last question is a second one: viz.: how far the rate of change
in a given language can be accelerated by external circumstances. This
second question bears immediately upon the history of the English language.
The grammar of the current idiom compared with the grammar of the
Anglo-Saxon is simplified. How far was this simplification of the grammar
promoted by the Norman Conquest. The current views exaggerate the influence
of the Norman Conquest and of French connexions. The remark of Mr. Price in
his Preface to Warton, acceded to by Mr. Hallam in his Introduction to the
Literature of Europe, is, that every one of the {117} other Low Germanic
languages (affected by nothing corresponding to the Norman Conquest)
displays the same simplification of grammar as the Anglo-Saxon (affected by
the Norman Conquest) displays. Confirmatory of this remark, it may be
added, that compared with the Icelandic, the Danish and Swedish do the
same. Derogatory to it is the comparatively complex grammar of the _new_
German, compared, not only with the Old High German, but with the
Moeso-Gothic. An extract from Mr. Hallam shall close the present section
and introduce the next.
"Nothing can be more difficult, except by an arbitrary line, than to
determine the commencement of the English language: not so much, as in
those on the Continent, because we are in want of materials, but rather
from an opposite reason, the possibility of showing a very gradual
succession of verbal changes that ended in a change of denomination. We
should probably experience a similar difficulty, if we knew equally
well the current idiom of France or Italy in the seventh and eighth
centuries. For when we compare the earliest English of the thirteenth
century with the Anglo-Saxon of the twelfth, it seems hard to pronounce
why it should pass for a separate language, rather than a modification
or simplification of the former. We must conform, however, to usage,
and say that the Anglo-Saxon was converted into English:--1. By
contracting and otherwise modifying the pronunciation and orthography
of words. 2. By omitting many inflections, especially of the noun, and
consequently making more use of articles and auxiliaries. 3. By the
introduction of French derivatives. 4. By using less inversion and
ellipsis, especially in poetry. Of these, the second alone, I think,
can be considered as sufficient to describe a new form of language; and
this was brought about so gradually, that we are not relieved from much
of our difficulty, as to whether some compositions shall pass for the
latest offspring of the mother, or the earlier fruits of the daughter's
fertility. It is a proof of this difficulty that the best masters of
our ancient language have lately introduced the word Semi-Saxon, which
is to cover everything from A.D. 1150 to A.D. 1250."--Chapter i. 47.
s. 176. At a given period, then, the Anglo-Saxon of the standard, and (if
the expression may be used) classical authors, such as Caedmon, Alfred,
Aelfric, &c., had undergone such a change as to induce the scholars of the
present age to denominate it, not Saxon, but _Semi_-Saxon. It had ceased to
be genuine Saxon, but had not yet become English. In certain parts of the
kingdom, where the mode of speech {118} changed more rapidly than
elsewhere, the Semi-Saxon stage of our language came earlier. It was, as it
were, precipitated.
The History of King Leir and his Daughters is found in two forms. Between
these there is a difference either of dialect or of date, and possibly of
both. Each, however, is Semi-Saxon. The extracts are made from Thorpe's
Analecta Anglo-Saxonica, p. 143.
Bladud hafde ene sune, Bladud hadde one sone,
Leir was ihaten; Leir was ihote,
Efter his fader daie, After his fader he held this lond,
He heold this drihlice lond, In his owene hond,
Somed an his live, Ilaste his lif-dages,
Sixti winter. Sixti winter.
He makade ane riche burh, He makede on riche borh,
Thurh radfulle his crafte, Thorh wisemenne reade,
And he heo lette nemnen, And hine lette nemni,
Efter him seolvan; After him seolve;
Kaer-Leir hehte the burh. Kair-Leir hehte the borh.
Leof heo wes than kinge, Leof he was than kinge;
Tha we, an ure leod-quide, The we, on ure speche,
Leir-chestre clepiad, Leth-chestre cleopieth,
Geare a than holde dawon. In than eolde daiye.
The Grave, a poetical fragment, the latter part of the Saxon Chronicle, a
Homily for St. Edmund's Day (given in the Analecta), and above all the
printed extracts of the poem of Layamon, are the more accessible specimens
of the Semi-Saxon. The Ormulum, although in many points English rather than
Saxon, retains the dual number of the Anglo-Saxon pronouns. However, lest
too much stress be laid upon this circumstance, the epistolary character of
the Ormulum must be borne in mind.
It is very evident that if, even in the present day, there were spoken in
some remote district the language of Alfred and Aelfric, such a mode of
speech would be called, not Modern English, but Anglo-Saxon. This teaches
us that the stage of language is to be measured, not by its date, but by
its structure. Hence, Saxon ends and Semi-Saxon begins, not at a given
year, A.D., but at that time {119} (whenever it be) when certain
grammatical inflections disappear, and certain characters of a more
advanced stage are introduced.
Some amongst others, of the earlier changes of the standard Anglo-Saxon
are,
1. The substitution of -_an_ for -_as_, in the plural of substantives,
_munucan_ for _munucas_ (monks); and, conversely, the substitution of -_s_
for -_n_, as _steorres_ for _steorran_ (stars). The use of -_s_, as the
sign of the plural, without respect to gender, or declension, may be one of
those changes that the Norman Conquest forwarded; -_s_ being the sign of
the plural in Anglo-Norman.
2. The ejection or shortening of final vowels, _thaet ylc_ for _thaet
ylce_; _sone_ for _sunu_; _name_ for _nama_; _dages_ for _dagas_.
3. The substitution of -_n_ for -_m_ in the dative case, _hwilon_ for
_hwilum_.
4. The ejection of the -_n_ of the infinitive mood, _cumme_ for _cuman_
(_to come_), _nemne_ for _nemnen_ (_to name_).
5. The ejection of -_en_ in the participle passive, _I-hote_ for _gehaten_
(_called_, _hight_).
6. The gerundial termination -_enne_, superseded by the infinitive
termination -_en_; as _to lufian_ for _to lufienne_, or _lufigenne_.
7. The substitution of -_en_ for -_adh_ in the persons plural of verbs; _hi
clepen_ (_they call_) for _hi clypiadh_, &c.
The preponderance (not the occasional occurrence) of forms like those above
constitute Semi-Saxon in contradistinction to standard Saxon, classical
Saxon, or Anglo-Saxon proper.
s. 177. _Old English Stage._--Further changes convert Semi-Saxon into Old
English. Some, amongst others, are the following:--
1. The ejection of the dative plural termination -_um_, and the
substitution of the preposition _to_ and the plural sign -_s_; as _to
smiths_ for _smidhum_. Of the dative singular the -_e_ is retained (_ende_,
_worde_); but it is by no means certain that, although recognized in
writing, it was recognized in pronunciation also.
2. The ejection of -_es_ in the genitive singular whenever the {120}
preposition _of_ came before it; _Godes love_ (_God's love_), but the _love
of God_, and not the _love of Godes_.
3. The syllable _-es_ as a sign of the genitive case extended to all
genders and to all declensions; _heart's_ for _heortan_; _sun's_ for
_sunnan_.
4. The same in respect to the plural number; _sterres_ for _steorran_;
_sons_ for _suna_.
5. The ejection of _-na_ in the genitive plural; as _of tunges'_ for
_tungena_.
6. The use of the word _the_, as an article, instead of _se_, &c.
The preponderance of the forms above (and not their occasional occurrence)
constitutes old English in contradistinction to Semi-Saxon.
The following extract from Henry's history (vol. viii. append. iv.) is the
proclamation of Henry III. to the people of Huntingdonshire, A.D. 1258. It
currently passes for the earliest specimen of English.
"Henry, thurg Godes fultome, King on Engleneloande, lhoaurd on Yrloand,
Duke on Normand, on Acquitain, Eorl on Anjou, send I greting, to alle
hise holde, ilaerde & ilewerde on Huntingdonschiere.
"That witen ge well alle, thaet we willen & unnen (grant) thaet ure
raedesmen alle other, the moare del of heom, thaet beoth ichosen thurg
us and thurg thaet loandes-folk on ure Kuneriche, habbith idon, and
schullen don, in the worthnes of God, and ure threowthe, for the freme
of the loande, thurg the besigte of than toforen iseide raedesmen, beo
stedfaest and ilestinde in alle thinge abutan aende, and we heaten alle
ure treowe, in the treowthe thaet heo us ogen, thet heo stede-feslliche
healden & weren to healden & to swerien the isetnesses thet beon makede
and beo to makien, thurg than toforen iseide raedesmen, other thurg the
moare del of heom alswo, also hit is before iseide. And thet aeheother
helpe thet for to done bitham ilche other, aganes alle men in alle thet
heo ogt for to done, and to foangen. And noan ne of mine loande, ne of
egetewhere, thurg this besigte, muge beon ilet other iwersed on
oniewise. And gif oni ether onie cumen her ongenes, we willen & heaten,
thaet alle ure treowe heom healden deadlichistan. And for thaet we
willen thaet this beo staedfast and lestinde, we senden gew this writ
open, iseined with ure seel, to halden amanges gew ine hord. Witnes
us-selven aet Lundaen, thaene egetetenthe day on the monthe of Octobr,
in the two and fowertigthe geare of ure crunning."
s. 178. The songs amongst the political verses printed by the Camden
Society, the romance of Havelok the Dane, {121} William and the Werwolf,
the Gestes of Alisaundre, King Horn, Ipomedon, and the King of Tars; and,
amongst the longer works, Robert of Gloucester's Chronicle, and the poems
of Robert of Bourn (Brunn), are (amongst others) Old English. Broadly
speaking, the _Old_ English may be said to begin with the reign of Henry
III., and to end with that of Edward III.
In the Old English the following forms predominate.
1. A fuller inflection of the demonstrative pronoun, or definite article;
_than_, _thenne_, _thaere_, _tham_;--in contradistinction to the Middle
English.
2. The presence of the dative singular in _-e_; _ende_, _smithe_;--_ditto_.
3. The existence of a genitive plural in _-r_ or _-ra_; _heora_, theirs;
_aller_, of all;--_ditto_. This with substantives and adjectives is less
common.
4. The substitution of _heo_ for _they_, of _heora_ for _their_, of _hem_
for _them_;--in contradistinction to the later stages of English, and in
contradistinction to old Lowland _Scotch_. (See Chapter III.)
5. A more frequent use of _min_ and _thin_, for _my_ and _thy_;--in
contradistinction to middle and modern English.
6. The use of _heo_ for _she_;--in contradistinction to middle and modern
English and old Lowland _Scotch_.
7. The use of broader vowels; as in _iclep_u_d_ or _iclep_o_d_ (for
_iclep_e_d_ or _ycl_e_pt_); _geong_o_st_, youngest; _ascode_, asked;
_eldore_, elder.
8. The use of the strong preterits (_see_ the chapter on the tenses of
verbs), where in the present English the weak form is found; _wex_, _wop_,
_dalf_, for _waxed_, _wept_, _delved_.
9. The omission not only of the gerundial termination _-enne_, but also of
the infinitive sign _-en_ after _to_; _to honte_, _to speke_;--in
contradistinction to Semi-Saxon.
10. The substitution of _-en_ for _-eth_ or _-edh_ in the first and second
persons plural of verbs; _we wollen_, we will: _heo schullen_, they
should;--_ditto_.
11. The comparative absence of the articles _se_ and _seo_;--_ditto_. {122}
12. The substitution of _ben_ and _beeth_, for _synd_ and _syndon_=_we_,
_ye_, _they are_;--in contradistinction to Semi-Saxon.
s. 179. The degree to which the Anglo-Saxon was actually influenced by the
Anglo-Norman has been noticed. The degree wherein the two languages came in
contact is, plainly, another consideration. The first is the question, How
far one of two languages influenced the other? The second asks, How far one
of two languages had the opportunity of influencing the other? Concerning
the extent to which the Anglo-Norman was used, I retail the following
statements and quotations.
1. "Letters even of a private nature were written in Latin till the
beginning of the reign of Edward I., soon after 1270, when a sudden
change brought in the use of French."--_Mr. Hallam, communicated by Mr.
Stevenson_ (_Literature of Europe, I. 52, and note_).
2. Conversation between the Members of the Universities was ordered to
be carried on either in Latin or French:--"_Si qua inter se proferant,
colloquio Latino vel saltem Gallico perfruantur._"--_Statutes of Oriel
College, Oxford.--Hallam, ibid._ from Warton.
3. "The Minutes of the Corporation of London, recorded in the Town
Clerk's Office, were in French, as well as the Proceedings in
Parliament, and in the Courts of Justice."--_Ibid._
4. "In Grammar Schools, boys were made to construe their Latin into
French,"--_Ibid._ "_Pueri in scholis, contra morem caeterarum nationum,
et Normannorum adventu, derelicto proprio vulgari, construere Gallice
compelluntur. Item quod filii nobilium ab ipsis cunabulorum crepundiis
ad Gallicum idioma informantur. Quibus profecto rurales homines
assimulari volentes, ut per hoc spectabiliores videantur, Francigenari
satagunt omni nisu._"--_Higden_ (_Ed. Gale_, p. 210).
That there was French in England before the battle of Hastings appears on
the authority of Camden:--
"Herein is a notable argument of our ancestors' steadfastness in
esteeming and retaining their own tongue. For, as _before the
Conquest_, they misliked nothing more in King Edward the Confessor,
than that he was Frenchified, and accounted the desire of a foreign
language then to be a foretoken of the bringing in of foreign powers,
which indeed happened."--_Remains_, p. 30.
s. 180. In Chaucer and Mandeville, and perhaps in all the writers of the
reign of Edward III., we have a transition {123} from the Old to the Middle
English. The last characteristic of a grammar different from that of the
present English, is the plural form in _-en_; _we tellen_, _ye tellen_,
_they tellen_. As this disappears, which it does in the reign of Queen
Elizabeth (Spenser has it continually), the Middle English may be said to
pass into the New or Modern English.
s. 181. The _present_ tendencies of the English may be determined by
observation; and as most of them will be noticed in the etymological part
of this volume, the few here indicated must be looked upon as illustrations
only.
1. The distinction between the subjunctive and indicative mood is likely to
pass away. We verify this by the very general tendency to say _if it is_,
and _if he speaks_, for _if it be_, and _if he speak_.
2. The distinction (as far as it goes) between the participle passive and
the past tense is likely to pass away. We verify this by the tendency to
say _it is broke_, and _he is smote_, for _it is broken_, and _he is
smitten_.
3. Of the double forms, _sung_ and _sang_, _drank_ and _drunk_, &c. one
only will be the permanent.
As stated above, these tendencies are a few out of a number, and have been
adduced in order to indicate the subject rather than to exhaust it.
s. 182. What the present language of England would have been had the Norman
Conquest never taken place, the analogy of Holland, Denmark, and of many
other countries enables us to determine. It would have been much as it is
at present. What it would have been had the _Saxon_ conquest never taken
place, is a question wherein there is far more speculation. Of France, of
Italy, of Wallachia, and of the Spanish Peninsula, the analogies all point
the same way. They indicate that the original Celtic would have been
superseded by the Latin of the conquerors, and consequently that our
language in its later stages would have been neither British nor Gaelic,
but Roman. Upon these analogies, however, we may refine. Italy, was from
the beginning, Roman; the Spanish Peninsula was invaded full early; no
ocean divided Gaul from Rome; and the war against the ancestors of the
Wallachians was a war of extermination.
* * * * *
{124}
CHAPTER III.
ON THE LOWLAND SCOTCH.
s. 183. The term _Lowland_ is used to distinguish the Scotch of the
South-east from the Scotch of the Highlands. The former is English in its
immediate affinities, and Germanic in origin; the latter is nearly the same
language with the Gaelic of Ireland, and is, consequently, Celtic.
The question as to whether the Lowland Scotch is a dialect of the English,
or a separate and independent language, is a verbal rather than a real one.
Reasons for considering the Scotch and English as _dialects_ of one and the
same language lie in the fact of their being (except in the case of the
more extreme forms of each) mutually intelligible.
Reasons for calling one a dialect of the other depend upon causes other
than philological, _e.g._, political preponderance, literary development,
and the like.
Reasons for treating the Scotch as a separate substantive language lie in
the extent to which it has the qualities of a regular cultivated tongue,
and a separate substantive literature--partially separate and substantive
at the present time, wholly separate and substantive in the times anterior
to the union of the crowns, and in the hands of Wyntoun, Blind Harry,
Dunbar, and Lindsay.
s. 184. Reasons for making the _philological_ distinction between the
English and Scotch dialects exactly coincide with the geographical and
political boundaries between the two kingdoms are not so easily given. It
is not likely that the Tweed and Solway should divide modes of speech so
accurately as they divide laws and customs; that broad and trenchant lines
of demarcation should separate the Scotch {125} from the English exactly
along the line of the Border; and that there should be no Scotch elements
in Northumberland, and no Northumbrian ones in Scotland. Neither is such
the case. Hence, in speaking of the Lowland Scotch, it means the language
in its typical rather than in its transitional forms; indeed, it means the
_literary_ Lowland Scotch which, under the first five Stuarts, was as truly
an independent language as compared with the English, as Swedish is to
Danish, Portuguese to Spanish, or _vice vers[^a]_.
s. 185. This limitation leaves us fully sufficient room for the notice of
the question as to its _origin_; a notice all the more necessary from the
fact of its having created controversy.
What is the _prim[^a] facie_ view of the relations between the English of
England, and the mutually intelligible language (Scotch or English, as we
choose to call it) of Scotland? One of three:--
1. That it originated in England, and spread in the way of extension and
diffusion northwards, and so reached Scotland.
2. That it originated in Scotland, and spread in the way of extension and
diffusion southwards, and so reached England.
3. That it was introduced in each country from a common source.
In any of these cases it is Angle, or Saxon, or Anglo-Saxon, even as
English is Angle, or Saxon, or Anglo-Saxon.
s. 186. A view, however, different from these, and one disconnecting the
Lowland Scotch from the English and Anglo-Saxon equally, is what may be
called the _Pict_ doctrine. Herein it is maintained that the Lowland
_Scotch is derived from the Pict, and that the Picts were of Gothic_
origin. The reasoning upon these matters is to be found in the Dissertation
upon the Origin of the Scottish Language prefixed to Jamieson's
Etymological Dictionary: two extracts from which explain the view which the
author undertakes to combat:--
_a._ "It is an opinion which, after many others, has been pretty generally
received, and, perhaps, almost taken for granted, that the language spoken
in the Lowlands of {126} Scotland is merely a corrupt dialect of the
English, or at least of the Anglo-Saxon."
_b._ "It has generally been supposed that the Saxon language was introduced
into Scotland in the reign of Malcolm Canmore by his good queen and her
retinue; or partly by means of the intercourse which prevailed between the
inhabitants of Scotland and those of Cumberland, Northumberland,
Westmoreland, and Durham, which were held by the Kings of Scotland as fiefs
of the crown of England. An English writer, not less distinguished for his
amiable disposition and candour than for the cultivation of his mind, has
objected to this hypothesis with great force of argument."
s. 187. Now, as against any such notion as that involved in the preceding
extracts, the reasoning of the learned author of the Scottish Dictionary
may, perhaps, be valid. No such view, however, is held, at the present
moment, by any competent judge; and it is doubtful whether, in the extreme
way in which it is put forward by the opponent of it, it was ever
maintained at all.
Be this, however, as it may, the theory which is opposed to it rests upon
the following positions--
1. That the Lowland Scotch were Picts.
2. That the Picts were Goths.
In favour of this latter view the chief reasons are--
1. That what the Belgae were the Picts were also.
2. That the Belgae were Germanic.
Again--
1. That the natives of the Orkneys were Picts.
2. That they were also Scandinavian.
So that the Picts were Scandinavian Goths.
From whence it follows that--assuming what is true concerning the Orkneys
is true concerning the Lowland Scotch--the Lowland Scotch was Pict,
Scandinavian, Gothic, and (as such) more or less Belgic.
For the non-Gothic character of the Picts see the researches of Mr.
Garnett, as given in s. 139, as well as a paper--believed to be from the
same author--in the Quarterly Review for 1834. {127}
For the position of the Belgae, see Chapter IV.
s. 188. That what is true concerning the Orkneys (viz. that they were
Scandinavian) is _not_ true for the south and eastern parts of Scotland, is
to be collected from the peculiar distribution of the Scottish Gaelic;
which indicates a distinction between the Scandinavian of the north of
Scotland and the Scandinavian of the east of England. The Lowland Scotch
recedes as we go northward. Notwithstanding this, it is _not_ the extreme
north that is most Gaelic. In Caithness the geographical names are Norse.
_Sutherland_, the most northern county of Scotland, takes its name from
being _south_; that is, of Norway. The Orkneys and Shetland are in name,
manners, and language, Norse or Scandinavian. The Hebrides are Gaelic mixed
with Scandinavian. The Isle of Man is the same. The word _Sodor_ (in Sodor
and Man) is Norse, with the same meaning as it has in _Sutherland_. All
this indicates a more preponderating, and an earlier infusion of Norse
along the coast of Scotland, than that which took place under the Danes
upon the coasts of England, in the days of Alfred and under the reign of
Canute. The first may, moreover, have this additional peculiarity, _viz._
of being Norwegian rather than Danish. Hence I infer that the Scandinavians
settled in the northern parts of Scotland at an early period, but that it
was a late period when they ravaged the southern ones; so that, though the
language of Orkney may be Norse, that of the Lothians may be Saxon.
To verify these views we want not a general dictionary of the Scottish
language taken altogether, but a series of local glossaries, or at any rate
a vocabulary, 1st, of the northern; 2ndly, of the southern Scottish.
Between the English and Lowland Scotch we must account for the likeness as
well as the difference. The Scandinavian theory accounts for the difference
only.
s. 189. Of the following specimens of the Lowland Scotch, the first is from
The Bruce, a poem written by Barbour, Archdeacon of Aberdeen, between the
years 1360 and 1375; the second from Wyntoun; the third from Blind Harry's
poem, Wallace, 1460; and the fourth from Gawin Douglas's translation of the
Aeneid, A.D. 1513. {128}
_The Bruce_, iv. 871--892.
And as he raid in to the nycht,
So saw he, with the monys lycht,
Schynnyng off scheldys gret plent['e];
And had wondre quhat it mycht be.
With that all hale thai gaiff a cry,
And he, that hard sa suddainly
Sic noyis, sumdele affrayit was.
Bot in schort time he till him tais
His spyrites full hardely;
For his gentill hart, and worthy,
Assurit hym in to that nede.
Then with the spuris he strak the sted,
And ruschyt in amaing them all.
The feyrst he met he gert him fall;
And syne his suord he swapyt out,
And roucht about him mony rout,
And slew sexsum weill sone and ma:
Then wndre him his horss thai sla:
And he fell; but he smertty rass,
And strykand rowm about him mass:
And slew off thaim a quantit['e].
But woundyt wondre sar was he.
_Wyntoun's Chronicle_, I. xiii. 1--22.
Blessyde Bretayn Beelde sulde be
Of all the Ilys in the Se,
Quhare Flowrys are fele on Feldys fayre
Hale of hewe, haylsum of ayre.
Of all corne thare is copy gret,
Pese and A'tys, Bere and Qwhet:
B['a]th froyt on Tre, and fysche in flwde;
And tyl all Catale pasture gwde.
Solynus Sayis, in Brettany
Sum steddys growys s['a] habowndanly
Of Gyrs, that sum tym (but) thair Fe
Fr['a] fwlth of Mete refrenyht be,
Dhair fwde sall turne tham to peryle,
To rot, or bryst, or dey sum quhyle.
Dhare wylde in Wode has welth at wille;
Dhare hyrdys hydys Holme and Hille:
Dhare Bwyis bowys all for Byrtht,
{129}
B['a]the Merle and Ma[:w]esys mellys for myrtht:
Dhare huntyng is at all kyne Dere,
And rycht gud hawlkyn on Bywer;
Of Fysche thaire is habowndance;
And nedfulle thyng to Mannys substance.
_Wallace_, xi. 230-262.
A lord off court, quhen he approchyt thar,
Wnwisytly sperd, withoutyn prouision;
"Wallace, dar ye go fecht on our lioun?"
And he said; "Ya, so the Kyng suffyr me;
Or on your selff, gyff ye ocht bettyr be."
Quhat will ye mar? this thing amittyt was,
That Wallace suld on to the lioun pas.
The King thaim chargyt to bring him gud harnas:
Then he said; "Nay, God scheild me fra sic cass.
I wald tak weid, suld I fecht with a man;
But (for) a dog, that nocht off armes can,
I will haiff nayn, bot synglar as I ga."
A gret manteill about his hand can ta,
And his gud suerd; with him he tuk na mar;
Abandounly in barrace entryt thar.
Gret chenys was wrocht in the yet with a gyn,
And pulld it to quhen Wallace was tharin.
The wod lyoun, on Wallace quhar he stud,
Rampand he braid, for he desyryt blud;
With his rude pollis in the mantill rocht sa.
Aukwart the bak than Wallace can him ta,
With his gud suerd, that was off burnest steill,
His body in twa it thruschyt euirilkdeill.
Syn to the King he raykyt in gret ire,
And said on lowd; "Was this all your desyr,
To wayr a Scot thus lychtly in to wayn?
Is thar mar doggis at ye wald yeit haiff slayne?
Go, bryng thaim furth, sen I mon doggis qwell,
To do byddyng, quhill that with thee duell.
It gaynd full weill I graithit me to Scotland;
For grettar deidis thair men has apon hand,
Than with a dog in battaill to escheiff--
At you in France for euir I tak my leiff."
{130}
_Gawin Douglas_, Aen. ii.
As Laocon that was Neptunus priest,
And chosin by cavil vnto that ilk office,
Ane fare grete bull offerit in sacrifice,
Solempnithe before the haly altere,
Throw the still sey from Tenedos in fere,
Lo twa gret lowpit edderis with mony thraw
First throw the flude towart the land can draw.
(My sprete abhorris this matter to declare)
Aboue the wattir thare hals stude euirmare,
With bludy creistis outwith the wallis hie,
The remanent swam always vnder the se,
With grisly bodyis lynkit mony fald,
The salt fame stouris from the fard they hald,
Unto the ground thay glade with glowand ene,
Stuffit full of venom, fire and felloun tene,
With tounges quhissling in thar mouthis red,
Thay lik the twynkilland stangis in thar hed.
We fled away al bludles for effere.
Bot with ane braide to Laocon in fere
Thay stert attanis, and his twa sonnys zyng
First athir serpent lappit like ane ring,
And with thare cruel bit, and stangis fell,
Of tender membris tuke mony sory morsel;
Syne thay the preist invadit baith twane,
Quhilk wyth his wappins did his besy pane
His childer for to helpen and reskew.
Bot thay about him lowpit in wympillis threw,
And twis circulit his myddel round about,
And twys faldit thare sprutillit skynnis but dout,
About his hals, baith neck and hed they schent.
As he ettis thare hankis to haue rent,
And with his handis thaym away haue draw,
His hede bendis and garlandis all war blaw
Full of vennum and rank poysoun attanis,
Quhilk infekkis the flesche, blude, and banys.
s. 190. In the way of orthography, the most characteristic difference
between the English and Scotch is the use, on the part of the latter, of
_qu_ for _wh_; as _quhen_, _quhare_, _quhat_, for _when_, _where_, _what_.
The substitution of _sch_ for _sh_ (as _scho_ for _she_), and of _z_ for
the Old English _[gh]_ (as _zour_ for _[gh]eowr_, _your_), is as much
northern English as Scotch. {131}
In pronunciation, the substitution of _d_ for _dh_ (if not a point of
spelling), as in _fader_ for _father_; of _a_ for _o_, as _b['a]ith_ for
_both_; of _s_ for _sh_, as _sall_ for _shall_; and the use of the guttural
sound of _ch_, as in _loch_, _nocht_, are the same.
The ejection of the _n_ before _t_, or an allied sound, and the lengthening
of the preceding vowel, by way of compensation, as in _begouth_ for
_beginneth_, seems truly Scotch. It is the same change that in Greek turns
the radical syllable [Greek: odont] into [Greek: odous].
The formation of the plural of verbs in _-s_, rather than in _-th_ (the
Anglo-Saxon form), is Northern English as well as Scotch:--Scotch,
_slepys_, _lovys_; Northern English, _slepis_, _lovis_; Old English,
_slepen_, _loven_; Anglo-Saxon _slepiadh_, _lufiadh_.
The formation of the plural number of the genitive case by the addition of
the syllable _-is_ (_blastis_, _birdis_, _bloomis_), instead of the letter
_-s_ (_blasts_, _birds_, _blooms_), carries with it a metrical advantage,
inasmuch as it gives a greater number of double rhymes.
The same may be said of the participial forms, _affrayit_, _assurit_, for
_affrayd_, _assured_.
Concerning the comparative rate of change in the two languages no general
assertion can be made. In the Scotch words _sterand_, _slepand_, &c., for
_steering_, _sleeping_, the form is antiquated, and Anglo-Saxon rather than
English. It is not so, however, with the words _thai_ (_they_), _thaim_
(_them_), _thair_ (_their_), compared with the contemporary words in
English, _heo_, _hem_, _heora_. In these it is the Scottish that is least,
and the English that is most Anglo-Saxon.
* * * * *
{132}
CHAPTER IV.
OF CERTAIN UNDETERMINED AND FICTITIOUS LANGUAGES OF GREAT BRITAIN.
s. 191. The languages mentioned in the present chapter claim their place on
one ground only,--_they have been the subject of controversy_. The notice
of them will be brief. The current texts upon which the controversies have
turned will be quoted; whilst the opinion of the present writer is left to
be collected from the title of the chapter.
_The Belgae._--By some these are considered a Germanic rather than a Celtic
tribe; the view being supported by the following extracts from
Caesar:--"_Gallia est omnis divisa in tres partes; quarum unam incolunt
Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam, qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli,
appellantur. Hi omnes lingua, institutis, legibus inter se differunt.
Gallos--a Belgis Matrona et Sequana dividit._"--B. G. i. "_Belgae ab
extremis Galliae finibus oriuntur._"--B. G. ii. "_Quum ab his quaereret,
quae civitates, quantaeque in armis essent, et quid in bello possent, sic
reperiebat: plerosque Belgas esse ortos a Germanis, Rhenumque antiquit[`u]s
transductos, propter loci fertilitatem ibi consedisse; Gallosque, qui ea
loca incolerent, expulisse; solosque esse qui patrum nostrorum memoria,
omni Gallia vexata Teutones Cimbrosque intra fines suos ingredi
prohibuerunt._"--B. G. ii. 4. "_Britanniae pars interior ab iis incolitur
quos natos in insul[^a] ips[^a] memori[^a] proditum dicunt: maritima pars
ab iis, qui praedae ac belli inferendi causa ex Belgio transierant._"--B.
G. v. 12.
s. 192. The possibly Germanic origin of the Belgae, and the Belgic element
of the British population, are matters which bear upon the question
indicated in s. 10, or that of the Germanic influences anterior to A.D.
449. {133}
They have a still more important bearing, the historian over and above
identifying the Belgae with the Germans, affirms _that what applies to the
Belgae applies to the Picts_ also.
Now this is one of the arguments in favour of the doctrine exhibited (and
objected to) in pp. 124-127, and the extent of questions upon which it
bears, may be collected from the following quotation:--"A variety of other
considerations might be mentioned, which, although they do not singly
amount to proof, yet merit attention, as viewed in connexion with what has
been already stated.
"As so great a part of the eastern coast of what is now called England was
so early peopled by the Belgae, it is hardly conceivable that neither so
enterprising a people, nor any of their kindred tribes, should ever think
of extending their descents a little farther eastward. For that the Belgae
and the inhabitants of the countries bordering on the Baltic, had a common
origin, there seems to be little reason to doubt. The Dutch assert that
their progenitors were Scandinavians, who, about a century before the
common era, left Jutland and the neighbouring territories, in quest of new
habitations.[29] The Saxons must be viewed as a branch from the same stock;
for they also proceeded from modern Jutland and its vicinity. Now, there is
nothing repugnant to reason in supposing that some of these tribes should
pass over directly to the coast of Scotland opposite to them, even before
the Christian era. For Mr. Whitaker admits that the Saxons, whom he
strangely makes a Gaulic people, in the second century applied themselves
to navigation, and soon became formidable to the Romans.[30] Before they
could become formidable to so powerful a people, they must have been at
least so well acquainted with navigation as to account it no great
enterprise to cross from the shores of the Baltic over to Scotland,
especially if they took the islands of Shetland and Orkney in their way.
"As we have seen that, according to Ptolemy, there were, in his time,
different tribes of Belgae, settled on the northern {134} extremity of our
country: the most natural idea undoubtedly is, that they came directly from
the Continent. For had these Belgae crossed the English Channel, according
to the common progress of barbarous nations, it is scarcely supposable that
this island would have been settled to its utmost extremity so early as the
age of Agricola.
"There is every reason to believe, that the Belgic tribes in Caledonia,
described by Ptolemy, were Picts. For as the Belgae, Picts, and Saxons seem
to have had a common origin, it is not worth while to differ about names.
These frequently arise from causes so trivial, that their origin becomes
totally inscrutable to succeeding ages. The Angles, although only one
tribe, have accidentally given their name to the country which they
invaded, and to all the descendants of the Saxons and Belgae, who were by
far more numerous.
"It is universally admitted, that there is a certain national character, of
an external kind, which distinguishes one people from another. This is
often so strong that those who have travelled through various countries, or
have accurately marked the diversities of this character, will scarcely be
deceived even as to a straggling individual. Tacitus long ago remarked the
striking resemblance between the Germans and Caledonians. Every stranger,
at this day, observes the great difference and complexion between the
Highlanders and Lowlanders. No intelligent person in England is in danger
of confounding the Welsh with the posterity of the Saxons. Now, if the
Lowland Scots be not a Gothic race, but in fact the descendants of the
ancient British, they must be supposed to retain some national resemblance
of the Welsh. But will any impartial observer venture to assert, that in
feature, complexion, or form, there is any such similarity as to induce the
slightest apprehension that they have been originally the same people?"[31]
It is doubtful, however, whether Caesar meant to say more than that over
above certain differences which distinguished the Belgae from the other
inhabitants of the common country _Gallia_, there was an intermixture of
Germans.
{135}
The import of a possibly Germanic origin for the Belgae gives us the import
of a possibly Germanic origin for--
s. 193. _The Caledonians._--A speculative sentence of Tacitus indicates the
chance of the Caledonians being Germanic:--"_Britanniam qui mortales initio
coluerint, indigenae an advecti, ut inter barbaros, parum compertum.
Habitus corporum varii: atque ex eo argumenta: namque rutilae Caledoniam
habitantium comae, magni artus, Germanicam originem
adseverant._"--Agricola, xi.
The continuation of the passage quoted in s. 193 has induced the notion
that there have been in Britain Spanish, Iberic, or Basque
tribes:--"_Silurum colorati vultus, et torti plerumque crines, et posita
contra Hispania, Iberos veteres trajecisse, easque sedes occup[^a]sse fidem
faciunt._"--Agricola, xi.
As this, although an opinion connected with the history of the languages of
Great Britain, is not an opinion connected with the history of the English
language, it is a question for the Celtic, rather than the Gothic,
philologist. The same applies to the points noticed in ss. 136-138.
Nevertheless they are necessary for the purposes of minute philological
analysis.
s. 194. As early as the year A.D. 1676, an opinion was advanced by[32]
Aylett Sammes, in a work entitled Britannia Antiqua Illustrata, that the
first colonisers of Ireland were the merchants of Tyre and Sidon. In
confirmation of this opinion the existence of several Eastern customs in
Ireland was adduced by subsequent antiquarians. Further marks of an Eastern
origin of the Irish were soon found in the Gaelic dialect of that country.
Finally, the matter (in the eyes at least of the national writers) was
satisfactorily settled by the famous discovery, attributed to General
Vallancey, of the true meaning of the Carthaginian lines in Plautus.
In the Little Carthaginian (Poenulus) of the Latin comic writer Plautus, a
portion of the dialogue is carried on in the language of Carthage.
That the Punic language of Carthage should closely {136} resemble that of
the mother-city Tyre, which was Phoenician; and that the Phoenician of Tyre
should be allied to the language of Palestine and Syria, was soon remarked
by the classical commentators of the time. Joseph Scaliger asserted that
the Punic of the Poenulus _differed but little from pure Hebrew_--"_Ab
Hebraismi puritate parum abesse._"
Emendated and interpreted by Bochart, the first ten lines of a speech in
Act v. s. 1. stand thus:--
1. N' yth alionim valionuth sicorath jismacon sith
2. Chy-mlachai jythmu mitslia mittebariim ischi
3. Liphorcaneth yth beni ith jad adi ubinuthai
4. Birua rob syllohom alonim ubymisyrtohom
5. Bythrym moth ymoth othi helech Antidamarchon
6. Ys sideli: brim tyfel yth chili schontem liphul
7. Uth bin imys dibur thim nocuth nu' Agorastocles
8. Ythem aneti hy chyr saely choc, sith naso.
9. Binni id chi lu hilli gubylim lasibil thym
10. Body aly thera ynn' yss' immoncon lu sim--
_The Same, in Hebrew Characters._
[Hebrew: N' 'T `LYWNYM W`LYWNWT SHKWRT YSMKWN Z'T:] .1
[Hebrew: KY MLKY NTMW: MTSLYCH MDBRYHM `SQY:] .2
[Hebrew: LPWRQNT 'T BNY 'T YD `DY WBNWTY:] .3
[Hebrew: BRWCH RB SHLHM `LYWNYM WBMSHWRTHM:] .4
[Hebrew: BT`RM MWT CHNWT 'WTY HLK 'NTYDMRKWN:] .5
[Hebrew: 'YSH SHYD`LY: BRM T`PL 'T CHYLY SHKYNTM L'PL:] .6
[Hebrew: 'T BN 'MYTS DBWR TM NQWT` NWH 'GWRST`WQLYS:] .7
[Hebrew: CHWTM CHNWTY HW' KYWR SH'LY CHWQ Z'T NWSH':] .8
[Hebrew: BYNY `D KY LW H'LH GBWLYM LSHBT TM:] .9
[Hebrew: BW' DY `LY TR` 'N': HNW 'SH'L 'M MNKR LW 'M] .01
Six lines following these were determined to be _Liby_-Phoenician, or the
language of the native Africans in the neighbourhood of Carthage, mixed
with Punic. These, it was stated, had the same meaning with the ten lines
in Carthaginian.
The following lines of Plautus have, by all commentators, {137} been viewed
in the same light, _viz._ as the Latin version of the speech of the
Carthaginian.
1. Deos deasque veneror, qui hanc urbem colunt,
2. Ut, quod de mea re huc veni, rite venerim.
3. Measque hic ut gnatas, et mei fratris filium
4. Reperire me siritis: Di, vostram fidem!
5. Quae mihi surruptae sunt, et fratris filium:
6. Sed hic mihi antehac hospes Antidamas fuit.
7. Eum fecisse aiunt, sibi quod faciendum fuit.
8. Ejus filium hic esse praedicant Agorastoclem:
9. Deum hospitalem et tesseram mecum fero:
10. In hisce habitare monstratum est regionibus.
11. Hos percunctabor, qui huc egrediuntur foras.
Guided by the metrical _paraphrase_ of the original author, Bochart laid
before the scholars of his time a Latin version, of which the following is
an English translation:--
_Close Translation of Bochart's Latin Version._
1. I ask the gods and goddesses that preside over this city,
2. That my plans may be fulfilled.--May my business prosper under their
guidance!
3. The release of my son and my daughters from the hands of a robber.
4. May the gods grant this, through the mighty spirit that is in them and
by their providence!
5. Before his death, Antidamarchus used to sojourn with me.
6. A man intimate with me: but he has joined the ranks of those whose
dwelling is in darkness (the dead).
7. There is a general report that his son has here taken his abode;
_viz._ Agorastocles.
8. The token (tally) of my claim to hospitality is a carven tablet, the
sculpture whereof is my god. This I carry.
9. A witness has informed me that he lives in this neighbourhood.
10. Somebody comes this way through the gate: behold him: I'll ask him
whether he knows the name.
To professed classics and to professed orientalists, the version of Bochart
has, _on the whole_, appeared satisfactory. Divisions of opinion there have
been, it is true, even amongst those who received it; but merely upon
matters of detail. Some have held that the Punic is Syriac rather than
Hebraic, whilst others have called in to its interpretation the Arabic,
{138} the Maltese, or the Chaldee; all (be it observed) languages akin to
the Hebrew. Those who look further than this for their affinities,
Gesenius[33] dismisses in the following cavalier and cursory manner:--"_Ne
eorum somnia memorem, qui e Vasconum et Hiberniae linguis huic causae
succurri posse opinati sunt; de quibus copiosius referre piget._"
The remark of Gesenius concerning the pretended affinities between the
Punic and Hibernian arose from the discovery attributed to General
Vallancey; _viz._ that the speech in Plautus was Irish Gaelic, and
consequently that the Irish was Carthaginian, and _vice vers[^a]_. The word
_attributed_ is used because the true originator of the hypothesis was not
Vallancey, but O'Neachtan.
_The Gaelic Version._
1. N 'iath all o nimh uath lonnaithe socruidshe me comsith
2. Chimi lach chuinigh! muini is toil, miocht beiridh iar mo scith
3. Liomhtha can ati bi mitche ad ['e]adan beannaithe
4. Bior nar ob siladh umhal: o nimh! ibhim a frotha!
5. Beith liom! mo thime noctaithe; neil ach tan ti daisic mac coinme
6. Is i de leabhraim tafach leith, chi lis con teampluibh ulla
7. Uch bin nim i is de beart inn a ccomhnuithe Agorastocles!
8. Itche mana ith a chithirsi; leicceath sith nosa!
9. Buaine na iad cheile ile: gabh liom an la so bithim'!
10. Bo dileachtach nionath n' isle, mon cothoil us im.
_In English._
1. Omnipotent much-dreaded Deity of this country! assuage my troubled
mind!
2. Thou! the support of feeble captives! being now exhausted with
fatigue, of thy free will guide to my children!
3. O let my prayers be perfectly acceptable in thy sight!
4. An inexhaustible fountain to the humble: O Deity! let me drink of its
streams!
5. Forsake me not! my earnest desire is now disclosed, which is only that
of recovering my daughters.
6. This was my fervent prayer, lamenting their misfortunes in thy sacred
temples.
7. O bounteous Deity! it is reported here dwelleth Agorastocles.
{139}
8. Should my request appear just, let here my disquietudes cease.
9. Let them be no longer concealed; O that I may this day find my
daughters!
10. They will be fatherless, and preys to the worst of men, unless it be
thy pleasure that I should find them.
From the quotations already given, the general reader may see that both the
text and the translation of Plautus are least violated in the reading and
rendering of Bochart, a reading and rendering which no _Gothic_ or
_Semitic_ scholar has ever set aside.
s. 195. _The hypothesis of an aboriginal Finnic population in Britain and
elsewhere._--A Celtic population of Britain preceded the Germanic. Are
there any reasons for believing that any older population preceded the
Celtic?
The reasoning upon this point is preeminently that of the Scandinavian
(_i.e._ Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian) school of philology and ethnology.
Arndt, I believe, was the first who argued that if the so-called
Indo-European nations were as closely connected with each other as they are
generally considered, their separation from the common stock must have been
subsequent to the occupation of Europe by some portion or other of the
human species--in other words, that this earlier population must have been
spread over those areas of which the Indo-Europeans took possession only at
a later period.
That the divisions of such an earlier population were, _at least_, as
closely connected with each other as the different members of the so-called
Indo-European class, was a reasonable opinion. It was even reasonable to
suppose that they were _more_ closely connected; since the date of their
diffusion must have been nearer the time of the original dispersion of
mankind.
If so, all Europe (the British Isles included) might have had as its
aborigines a family older than the oldest members of the Indo-European
stock; a family of which every member may now be extinct, or a family of
which remains may still survive.
Where are such remains to be sought? In two sorts of localities-- {140}
1. Parts _beyond_ the limits of the area occupied by the so-called
Indo-Europeans.
2. Parts _within_ the limits of the so-called Indo-Europeans; but so
fortified by nature as to have been the stronghold of a retiring
population.
What are the chief parts coming under the first of these conditions?
_a._ The countries beyond the Indo-Europeans of the Scandinavian and
Slavonic areas, _i.e._ the countries of the Laplanders and Finnlanders.
_b._ The countries beyond the Indo-Europeans of the Iranian stock, _i.e._
the Dekkan, or the country of those natives of India (whatever they may be)
whose languages are not derived from the Sanscrit.
What are parts coming under the second of these conditions?
_a._ The Basque districts of the Pyrenees, where the language represents
that of the aborigines of Spain anterior to the conquest of the Roman.
_b._ The Albanians.--Such the doctrine of the _continuity_ of an
_ante_-Indo-European population, from Cape Comorin to Lapland, and from
Lapland to the Pyrenees. There is _some_ philological evidence of this:
whether there is _enough_ is another matter.
This view, which on its _philological_ side has been taken up by Rask,
Kayser, and the chief Scandinavian scholars, and which, whether right or
wrong, is the idea of a bold and comprehensive mind, as well as a powerful
instrument of criticism in the way of a provisional theory, has also been
adopted on its _physiological_ side by the chief Scandinavian anatomists
and palaeontologists--Retzius, Eschricht, Niilson, and others. Skulls
differing in shape from the Celtic skulls of Gaul, and from the Gothic
skulls of Germany and Scandinavia, have been found in considerable numbers;
and generally in burial-places of an apparently greater antiquity than
those which contain typical Celtic, or typical Gothic crania. Hence there
is some _anatomical_ as well as philological evidence: whether there is
enough is another question.
* * * * *
{141}
PART III.
SOUNDS, LETTERS, PRONUNCIATION, SPELLING.
--------
CHAPTER I.
GENERAL NATURE OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS.
s. 196. To two points connected with the subject of the following Chapter,
the attention of the reader is requested.
I. In the comparison of sounds the ear is liable to be misled by the eye.
The syllables _ka_ and _ga_ are similar syllables. The vowel is in each the
same, and the consonant is but slightly different. Now the words _ka_ and
_ga_ are more allied to each other than the words _ka_ and _ba_, _ka_ and
_ta_, &c., because the consonantal sounds of _k_ and _g_ are more allied
than the consonantal sounds of _k_ and _b_, _k_ and _t_.
Comparing the syllables _ga_ and _ka_, we see the affinity between the
sounds, and we see it at the first glance. It lies on the surface, and
strikes the ear at once.
It is, however, very evident that ways might be devised, or might arise
from accident, of concealing the likeness between the two sounds, or, at
any rate, of making it less palpable. One of such ways would be a faulty
mode of spelling. If instead of _ga_ we wrote _gha_ the following would be
the effect: the syllable would appear less simple than it really was; it
would look as if it consisted of three parts instead of two, and
consequently its affinity to _ka_ would seem less than it really was. It is
perfectly true that a little consideration would tell us that, as long as
the sound remained the same, the relation {142} of the two syllables
remained the same; and that, if the contrary appeared to be the case, the
ear was misled by the eye. Still a little consideration would be required.
Now in the English language we have, amongst others, the following modes of
spelling that have a tendency to mislead:--
The sounds of _ph_ and of _f_, in _Philip_ and _fillip_, differ to the eye,
but to the ear are identical. Here a difference is simulated.
The sounds of _th_ in _thin_, and of _th_ in _thine_, differ to the ear,
but to the eye seem the same. Here a difference is concealed.
These last sounds appear to the eye to be double or compound. This is not
the case; they are simple single sounds, and not the sounds of _t_ followed
by _h_, as the spelling leads us to imagine.
II. Besides improper modes of spelling, there is another way of concealing
the true nature of sounds. If I say that _ka_ and _ga_ are allied, the
alliance is manifest; since I compare the actual sounds. If I say _ka_ and
_gee_ are allied, the alliance is concealed; since I compare, not the
actual sounds, but only the names of the letters that express those sounds.
Now in the English language we have, amongst others, the following names of
letters that have a tendency to mislead:--
The sounds _fa_ and _va_ are allied. The names _eff_ and _vee_ conceal this
alliance.
The sounds _sa_ and _za_ are allied. The names _ess_ and _zed_ conceal the
alliance.
In comparing sounds it is advisable to have nothing to do either with
letters or names of letters. Compare the sounds themselves.
In many cases it is sufficient, in comparing consonants, to compare
syllables that contain those consonants; _e.g._, to determine the relations
of _p_, _b_, _f_, _v_, we say _pa_, _ba_, _fa_, _va_; or for those of _s_
and _z_, we say _sa_, _za_. Here we compare _syllables_, each consonant
being followed by a vowel. At times this is insufficient. We are often
obliged to isolate the consonant from its vowel, and bring our organs to
utter (or half utter) imperfect sounds of _p'_, _b'_, _t'_, _d'_. In doing
this we isolate the consonant. {143}
s. 197. Let any of the _vowels_ (for instance, the _a_ in _father_) be
sounded. The lips, the tongue, and the parts within the throat remain in
the same position: and as long as these remain in the same position the
sound is that of the vowel under consideration. Let, however, a change take
place in the position of the organs of sound; let, for instance, the lips
be closed, or the tongue be applied to the front part of the mouth: in that
case the vowel sound is cut short. It undergoes a change. It terminates in
a sound that is different, according to the state of those organs whereof
the position has been changed. If, on the vowel in question, the lips be
closed, there then arises an imperfect sound of _b_ or _p_. If, on the
other hand, the tongue be applied to the front teeth, or to the fore part
of the palate, the sound is one (more or less imperfect) of _t_ or d. This
fact illustrates the difference between the vowels and the consonants. It
may be verified by pronouncing the _a_ in _fate_, _ee_ in _feet_, _oo_ in
_book_, _o_ in _note_, &c.
It is a further condition in the formation of a vowel sound, that the
passage of the breath be uninterrupted. In the sound of the _l'_ in _lo_
(isolated from its vowel) the sound is as continuous as it is with the _a_
in _fate_. Between, however, the consonant _l_ and the vowel _a_ there is
this difference: with _a_, the passage of the breath is uninterrupted; with
_l_, the tongue is applied to the palate, breaking or arresting the passage
of the breath.
s. 198. The primary division of our articulate sounds is into vowels and
consonants. The latter are again divided into liquids (_l_, _m_, _n_, _r_)
and mutes (_p_, _b_, _f_, _v_, _t_, _d_, _g_, _s_, _z_, &c.) _Definitions_
for the different sorts of articulate sounds have still to be laid down. In
place of these, we have general assertions concerning the properties and
qualities of the respective classes. Concerning the consonants as a class,
we may predicate one thing concerning the liquids, and concerning the
mutes, another. What the nature of these assertions is, will be seen after
the explanation of certain terms.
s. 199. _Sharp and flat._--Take the sounds of _p_, _f_, _t_, _k_, _s_;
isolate them from their vowels, and pronounce them. The sound is the sound
of a whisper. {144}
Let _b_, _v_, _d_, _g_, _z_, be similarly treated. The sound is no whisper,
but one at the natural tone of our voice.
Now _p_, _f_, _t_, _k_, _s_ (with some others that will be brought forward
anon) are _sharp_, whilst _b_, _v_, &c. are _flat_. Instead of _sharp_,
some say _hard_, and instead of _flat_, some say _soft_. The Sanskrit terms
_sonant_ and _surd_ are, in a scientific point of view, the least
exceptionable. They have, however, the disadvantage of being pedantic. The
_tenues_ of the classics (as far as they go) are sharp, the _mediae_ flat.
_Continuous and explosive._--Isolate the sounds of _b_, _p_, _t_, _d_, _k_,
_g_. Pronounce them. You have no power of prolonging the sounds, or of
resting upon them. They escape with the breath, and they escape at once.
It is not so with _f_, _v_, _sh_, _zh_. Here the breath is transmitted by
degrees, and the sound can be drawn out and prolonged for an indefinite
space of time. Now _b_, _p_, _t_, &c. are explosive _f_, _v_, &c.
continuous.
s. 200. Concerning the vowels, we may predicate _a_) that they are all
continuous, _b_) that they are all flat.
Concerning the liquids, we may predicate _a_) that they are all continuous,
_b_) that they are all flat.
Concerning the mutes, we may predicate _a_) that one half of them is flat,
and the other half sharp, and _b_) that some are continuous, and that
others are explosive.
s. 201.--The letter _h_ is no articulate sound, but only a breathing.
For the semivowels and the diphthongs, see the sequel.
* * * * *
{145}
CHAPTER II.
SYSTEM OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS.
s. 202.--The attention of the reader is now directed to the following
_foreign_ vowel sounds.
1. _['e] ferm['e]_, of the French.--This is a sound allied to, but
different from, the _a_ in _fate_, and the _ee_ in _feet_. It is
intermediate to the two.
2. _u_ of the French, _ue_ of the Germans, _y_ of the Danes.--This sound is
intermediate to the _ee_ in _feet_, and the _oo_ in _book_.
3. _o chiuso_, of the Italians.--Intermediate to the _o_ in _note_, and the
_oo_ in _book_.
For these sounds we have the following sequences: _a_ in _fate_, _['e]
ferm['e]_, _ee_ in _feet_, _ue_ in _uebel_ (German), _oo_ in _book_, _o
chiuso_, _o_ in _note_. And this is the true order of alliance among the
vowels; _a_ in _fate_, and _o_ in _note_, being the extremes; the other
sounds being transitional or intermediate. As the English orthography is at
once singular and faulty, it exhibits the relationship but imperfectly.
s. 203. _The system of the mutes._--Preliminary to the consideration of the
system of the mutes, let it be observed:--
1. that the _th_ in _thin_ is a simple single sound, different from the
_th_ in _thine_, and that it may be expressed by the sign th.
2. That the _th_ in _thine_ is a simple single sound, different from the
_th_ in _thin_, and that it may be expressed by the sign dh.
3. That the _sh_ in _shine_ is a simple single sound, and that it may be
expressed by the sign [sigma] (Greek [Greek: sigma]).
4. That the _z_ in _azure_, _glazier_ (French _j_), is a simple single
sound, and that it may be expressed by the sign [zeta] (Greek [Greek:
zeta]). {146}
5. That in the Laplandic, and possibly in many other languages, there are
two peculiar sounds, different from any in English, German, and French,
&c., and that they may respectively be expressed by the sign _[kappa]_ and
the sign _[gamma]_ (Greek [Greek: kappa] and [Greek: gamma]).
With these preliminary notices we may exhibit the system of the sixteen
mutes; having previously determined the meaning of two fresh terms, and
bearing in mind what was said concerning the words sharp and flat,
continuous and explosive.
_Lene and aspirate._--From the sound of _p_ in _pat_, the sound of _f_ in
_fat_ differs in a certain degree. This difference is not owing to a
difference in their sharpness or flatness. Each is sharp. Neither is it
owing to a difference in their continuity or explosiveness; although, at
the first glance, such might appear to be the case. _F_ is continuous,
whilst _p_ is explosive. _S_, however, is continuous, and _s_, in respect
to the difference under consideration, is classed not with _f_ the
continuous sound but with _p_ the explosive one. I am unable to account for
the difference between _p_ and _f_. It exists: it is visible. It has been
expressed by a term. _P_ is called _lene_, _f_ is called _aspirate_.
As _f_ is to _p_ so is _v_ to b.
As _v_ is to _b_ so is _th_ to _t_.
As _th_ is to _t_ so is _dh_ to d.
As _dh_ is to _d_ so is _[kappa]_ to _k_.
As _[kappa]_ is to _k_ so is _[gamma]_ to _g_.
As _[gamma]_ is to _g_ so is _[sigma]_ to _s_.
As _[sigma]_ is to _s_ so is _[zeta]_ to _z_.
Hence _p_, _b_, _t_, _d_, _k_, _g_, _s_, _z_, are _lene_; _f_, _v_, _th_,
_dh_, _[kappa]_, _[gamma]_, _[sigma]_, _[zeta]_, are _aspirate_. Also _p_,
_f_, _t_, _th_, _k_, _[kappa]_, _s_, _[sigma]_, are _sharp_, whilst _b_,
_v_, _d_, _dh_, _g_, _[gamma]_, _z_, _[zeta]_, are _flat_; so that there is
a double series of relationship capable of being expressed as follows:--
_Lene_. _Aspirate_.
_Sharp_. _Flat_. _Sharp_. _Flat_.
_p_ _b_ _f_ _v_
_t_ _d_ _th_ _dh_
_k_ _g_ _[kappa]_ _[gamma]_
_s_ _z_ _[sigma]_ _[zeta]_
_Sharp_. _Flat_.
_Lene_. _Aspirate_. _Lene_. _Aspirate_
_p_ _f_ _b_ _v_
_t_ _th_ _d_ _dh_
_k_ _[kappa]_ _g_ _[gamma]_
_s_ _[sigma]_ _z_ _[zeta]_
{147}
I am not familiar enough with the early grammarians to know when the terms
_lene_ and _aspirate_ were first used. They were the Latin equivalents to
the Greek words [Greek: psilon] (_psilon_) and [Greek: dasu] (_dasy_)
respectively. The Greek terms are preferable. _They_ convey no determinate
idea, whereas the Latin terms convey a false one. The origin of the word
aspirate I imagine to be as follows. The Latin language, wanting both the
sound of the Greek _theta_, and the sign to express it (_[theta]_) rendered
it by _th_. This orthography engenders the false notion that _[theta]_
differed from _[tau]_ by the addition of the aspirate _h_. To guard against
similar false notions, I rarely hereafter use the word aspirate without
qualifying it by the addition of the adjective _so-called_.
All the so-called aspirates are continuous; and, with the exception of _s_
and _z_, all the lenes are explosive.
I believe that in the fact of each mute appearing in a fourfold form
(_i.e._ sharp, or flat, lene, or (so-called) aspirate), lies the essential
character of the mutes as opposed to the liquids.
_Y_ and _w_.--These sounds, respectively intermediate to _[gamma]_ and _i_
(the _ee_ in _feet_), and to _[upsilon]_ and _u_ (_oo_ in _book_), form a
transition from the vowels to the consonants.
s. 204. It has been seen that the sixteen mutes are reducible to four
series. Of these series, _p_, _t_, _k_, _s_, may respectively be taken as
the types. Of the liquids it may be predicated as follows:--
1. That _m_ is allied to the series _p_.--The combination _inp_ has a
tendency to become _imp_.
2. That _n_ is allied to the series _t_.--The combination _imt_ has a
tendency to become either _impt_, or _int_.
3. That _l_ is allied to the series _k_.--The evidence of this lies deep in
comparative philology.
4. That _r_ is allied to the series _s_.--The evidence of this is of the
same nature with that of the preceding assertion.
The series _p_ and _k_ have this peculiarity.--They are connected with the
vowels through _w_ and _u_ (_oo_), and through _y_ and _i_ (_ee_)
respectively.
s. 205. The French word _roi_ and the English words _oil_, {148} _house_,
are specimens of a fresh class of articulations; _viz._, of compound vowel
sounds or _diphthongs_. The diphthong _oi_ is the vowel _o_ modified, plus
the _semi_vowel _y_ (not the _vowel_ _i_) modified. The diphthongal sound
in _roi_ is the vowel _o_ modified, _plus_ the semivowel _w_ (not the vowel
_u_ or _oo_) modified. In _roi_ the semivowel element precedes, in _oil_ it
follows. In _roi_ it is the semivowel allied to series _p_; in _oil_ it is
the semivowel allied to series _k_. _The nature of the modification that
the component parts of a diphthong undergo has yet to be determined_;
although it is certain there is one. If it were not so, the articulations
would be _double_, not _compound_.
The words quoted indicate the nature of the diphthongal system.
1. Diphthongs with the semivowel _w_, _a_) _preceding_, as in the French
word _roi_, _b_) _following_, as in the English word _new_.
2. Diphthongs with the semivowel _y_, _a_) _preceding_, as is common in the
languages of the Lithuanic and Slavonic stocks, _b_) _following_, as in the
word _oil_.
3. Triphthongs with a semivowel both _preceding_ and _following_.
The diphthongs in English are four; _ow_ as in _house_, _ew_ as in _new_,
_oi_ as in _oil_, _i_ as in _bite_, _fight_.
s. 206. _Chest_, _jest_.--Here we have compound consonantal sounds. The
_ch_ in _chest_ is _t_ + _sh_ ([sigma]), the _j_ in _jest_ is _d_ + _zh_
([zeta]). I believe that in these combinations one or both the elements,
_viz._, _t_ and _sh_, _d_ and _zh_, are modified; but I am unable to state
the exact nature of this modification.
s. 207. _Ng._--The sound of the _ng_ in _sing_, _king_, _throng_, when at
the end of a word, or of _singer_, _ringing_, &c. in the middle of a word,
is not the natural sound of the combination _n_ and _g_, each letter
retaining its natural power and sound; but a simple single sound, of which
the combination _ng_ is a conventional mode of expressing.
s. 208. Other terms, chiefly relating to the vowels, have still to be
explained. The _['e]_ of the French has been called _ferm['e]_, or _close_
(Italian, _chiuso_). Its opposite, the _a_ in _fate_, is _open_.
Compared with _a_ in _fate_, and the _o_ in _note_, _a_ in _father_, {149}
and the _aw_ in _bawl_, are _broad_, the vowels of _note_ and _fate_ being
_slender_.
s. 209. In _fat_, the vowel is, according to common parlance, _short_; in
_fate_, it is _long_. Here we have the introduction of two fresh terms. For
the words _long_ and _short_, I would fain substitute _independent_ and
_dependent_. If from the word _fate_ I separate the final consonantal
sound, the syllable, _fa_ remains. In this syllable the _a_ has precisely
the sound that it had before. It remains unaltered. The removal of the
consonant has in nowise modified its sound or power. It is not so with the
vowel in the word _fat_. If from this I remove the consonant following, and
so leave the _a_ at the end of the syllable, instead of in the middle, I
must do one of two things: I must sound it either as the _a_ in _fate_, or
else as the _a_ in _father_. Its (so-called) short sound it cannot retain,
unless it be supported by a consonant following. For this reason it is
_dependent_. The same is the case with all the so-called short sounds,
_viz._, the _e_ in _bed_, _i_ in _fit_, _u_ in _bull_, _o_ in _not_, _u_ in
_but_.
To the preceding remarks the following statements may be added.
1. That the words _independent_ and _dependent_ correspond with the terms
_perfect_ and _imperfect_ of the Hebrew grammarians.
2. That the Hebrew grammars give us the truest notions respecting these
particular properties of vowels.
The following sentences are copied from Lee's Hebrew Grammar, Art. 33,
34:--"By _perfect vowels_ is meant, vowels which, being preceded by a
consonant" (_or without being so preceded_), "will constitute a complete
syllable, as [Hebrew: BA] _b[=a]_. By _imperfect vowels_ is meant those
vowels which are not generally" (_never_) "found to constitute syllables
without either the addition of a consonant or of an accent. Such syllables,
therefore, must be either like [Hebrew: BDA] _bad_, or [Hebrew: BA]
_b[=a]_, _i.e._, followed by a consonant, or accompanied by an accent." For
further remarks on this subject, see the chapter on accent.
s. 210. Before _i_, _e_, and _y_ of the English alphabet, and before _ue_
and _oe_ German, the letters _c_ and _g_ have the tendency to assume the
sound and power of _s_ or _z_, of _sh_ or _zh_, of _ch_ or _j_; {150} in
other words, of becoming either _s_ or some sound allied to _s_. Compared
with _a_, _o_, and _u_ (as in _gat_, _got_, _gun_), which are _full_, _i_,
_e_, _y_, are _small_ vowels.
It not every vowel that is susceptible of every modification. _I_ (_ee_)
and _u_ (_oo_) are incapable of becoming broad. _E_ in _bed_ (as I have
convinced myself), although both broad and slender, is incapable of
becoming independent. For the _u_ in _but_, and for the _oe_ of certain
foreign languages, I have no satisfactory systematic position.
s. 211. _Vowel System._
_Broad._ | _Slender._
| |
_Independent._ |_Independent._ | _Dependent._
| |
_a_, in _father_ |_a_, in _fate_ |_a_, in _fat_.
|_e ferm['e]_, _long_ |_e ferm['e]_, _short_.
_e_, in _meine_, Germ.| |_e_, in _bed_.
|_ee_, in _feet_ |_i_, in _pit_.
|_ue_, of the German, _long_|the same, _short_.
|_oo_, in _book_ |_ou_, in _could_.
|_o chiuso_ |the same, _short_.
_aw_, in _bawl_ |_o_, in _note_ |_o_, in _note_.
From these, the semivowels _w_ and _y_ make a transition to the consonants
_v_ and the so-called aspirate of _g_ ([gamma], not being in English),
respectively.
s. 212. _System of Consonants._
_Liquids._ | _Mutes._ | _Semivowels._
| |
| _Lene._ | _Aspirate._ |
| | |
| _Sharp._ _Flat._ | _Sharp._ _Flat._ |
| | |
_m_ | _p_ _b_ | _f_ _v_ | _w_
_n_ | _t_ _d_ | _th_ _dh_ |
_l_ | _k_ _g_ | [kappa] [gamma] | _y_
_r_ | _s_ _z_ | [sigma] [zeta] |
s. 213. Concerning the vowel system I venture no assertion. The consonantal
system I conceive to have been exhibited above in its whole fulness. The
number of mutes, _specifically_ distinct, I consider to be sixteen and no
more: the number of liquids, four. What then are the powers of the numerous
letters in alphabets like those of Arabia and Armenia? What {151} is the
German _ch_, and Irish _gh_? _Varieties_ of one or other of the sounds
exhibited above, and not articulations specifically distinct.
s. 214. There is a _difference between a connexion in phonetics and a
connexion in grammar_.--Phonetics is a word expressive of the
subject-matter of the present chapter. The present chapter determines
(amongst other things) the systematic relation of articulate sounds. The
word _ph[^o]naeticos_ ([Greek: phonetichos]) signifies _appertaining to
articulate sounds_. It is evident that between sounds like _b_ and _v_, _s_
and _z_, there is a connexion in phonetics. Now in the grammar of languages
there is often a change, or a permutation of letters: _e.g._, in the words
_tooth_, _teeth_, the vowel, in _price_, _prize_, the consonant, is
changed. Here there is a connexion in grammar.
That the letters most closely allied in phonetics should be most frequently
interchanged in grammar, is what, on _[`a] priori_ grounds, we most
naturally are led to expect. And that such is _often_ the case, the study
of languages tells us. That, however, it is always so, would be a hasty and
an erroneous assertion. The Greek language changes _p_ into _f_. Here the
connexion in phonetics and the connexion in language closely coincide. The
Welsh language changes _p_ into _m_. Here the connexion in phonetics and
the connexion in language do _not_ closely coincide.
* * * * *
{152}
CHAPTER III.
OF CERTAIN COMBINATIONS OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS.
s. 215. Certain combinations of articulate sounds are incapable of being
pronounced. The following rule is one that, in the forthcoming pages, will
frequently be referred to. _Two (or more) _mutes_, of different degrees of
sharpness and flatness, are incapable of coming together in the same
syllable._ For instance, _b_, _v_, _d_, _g_, _z_, &c. being flat, and _p_,
_f_, _t_, _k_, _s_, &c. being sharp, such combinations as _abt_, _avt_,
_apd_, _afd_, _agt_, _akd_, _atz_, _ads_, &c., are unpronounceable.
_Spelt_, indeed, they may be; but attempts at pronunciation end in a
_change_ of the combination. In this case either the flat letter is changed
to its sharp equivalent (_b_ to _p_, _d_ to _t_, &c.) or _vice vers[^a]_
(_p_ to _b_, _t_ to _d_). The combinations _abt_, and _agt_, to be
pronounced, must become either _apt_ or _abd_, or else _akt_ or _agd_.
For determining which of the two letters shall be changed, in other words,
whether it shall be the first that accommodates itself to the second, or
the second that accommodates itself to the first, there are no general
rules. This is settled by the particular habit of the language in
consideration.
The word _mutes_ in the second sentence of this section must be dwelt on.
It is only with the _mutes_ that there is an impossibility of pronouncing
the heterogeneous combinations above mentioned. The liquids and the vowels
are flat; but the liquids and vowels, although flat, may be followed by a
sharp consonant. If this were not the case, the combinations _ap_, _at_,
_alp_, _alt_, &c. would be unpronounceable.
The semivowels, although flat, admit of being followed by a sharp
consonant.
The law exhibited above may be called the law of accommodation. {153}
Combinations like _gt_, _kd_, &c., may be called incompatible combinations.
s. 216. _Unstable combinations._--That certain sounds in combination with
others have a tendency to undergo changes, may be collected from the
observation of our own language, as we find it spoken by those around us,
or by ourselves. The _ew_ in _new_ is a sample of what may be called an
unsteady or unstable combination. There is a natural tendency to change it
either into _oo_ (_noo_) or _yoo_ (_nyoo_); perhaps also into _yew_
(_nyew_).
s. 217. _Effect of the semivowel _y_ on certain letters when they precede
it._--Taken by itself the semivowel _y_, followed by a vowel (_ya_, _yee_,
_yo_, _you_, &c.), forms a stable combination. Not so, however, if it be
preceded by a consonant, of the series _t_, _k_, or _s_, as _tya_, _tyo_;
_dya_, _dyo_; _kya_, _kyo_; _sya_, _syo_. There then arises an unstable
combination. _Sya_ and _syo_ we pronounce as _sha_ and _sho_; _tya_ and
_tyo_ we pronounce as _cha_ and _ja_ (_i.e._ _tsh_, _dzh_.). This we may
verify from our pronunciation of words like _sure_, _picture_, _verdure_
(_shoor_, _pictshoor_, _verdzhoor_), having previously remarked that the
_u_ in those words is not sounded as _oo_ but as _yoo_. The effect of the
semivowel _y_, taken with instability of the combination _ew_, accounts for
the tendency to pronounce _dew_ as if written _jew_.
s. 218. _The evolution of new sounds._--To an English ear the sound of the
German _ch_ falls strange. To an English organ it is at first difficult to
pronounce. The same is the case with the German vowels _oe_ and _ue_ and
with the French sounds _u_, _eu_, &c.
To a German, however, and a Frenchman, the sound of the English _th_
(either in _thin_ or _thine_) is equally a matter of difficulty.
The reason of this lies in the fact of the respective sounds being absent
in the German, French, and English languages; since sounds are easy or hard
to pronounce just in proportion as we have been familiarised with them.
There is no instance of a new sound being introduced at once into a
language. Where they originate at all, they are _evolved_, not imported.
{154}
s. 219. _Evolution of sounds._--Let there be a language where there is no
such a sound as that of _z_, but where there is the sound of _s_. The sound
of _z_ may be evolved under (amongst others) the following conditions. 1.
Let there be a number of words ending in the flat mutes; as _slab_, _stag_,
_stud_, &c. 2. Let a certain form (the plural number or the genitive case)
be formed by the addition of _is_ or _es_; as _slabis_, _stages_, _studes_,
&c. 3. Let the tendency that words have to contract eject the intermediate
vowel, _e_ or _i_, so that the _s_ of the inflexion (a _sharp_ mute) and
the _b_, _d_, _g_, &c. of the original word (_flat_ mutes) be brought into
juxta-position, _slabs_, _studs_, _stags_. There is then an incompatible
termination, and one of two changes must take place; either _b_, _d_, or
_g_ must become _p_, _t_, or _k_ (_slaps_, _staks_, _stuts_); or _s_ must
become _z_ (_stagz_, _studz_, _slabz_). In this latter case _z_ is evolved.
Again,
Let there be a language wherein there are no such sounds as _sh_, _ch_
(_tsh_), or _j_ (_dzh_); but where there are the sounds of _s_, _t_, _d_,
and _y_.
Let a change affect the unstable combinations _sy_, _ty_, _dy_. From this
will arise the evolved sounds of _sh_, _ch_, and _j_.
The phenomena of evolution help to determine the pronunciation of dead
languages.
s. 220. _On the value of a sufficient system of sounds._--In certain
imaginable cases, a language may be materially affected by the paucity of
its elementary articulate sounds.
In a given language let there be the absence of the sound _z_, the other
conditions being those noted in the case of the words _stag_, _slab_,
_stud_, &c. Let the intermediate vowel be ejected. Then, instead of the _s_
being changed into an evolved _z_, let the other alternative take place; so
that the words become _staks_, _slaps_, _stuts_. In this latter case we
have an alteration of the original word, brought about by the insufficiency
of the system of articulate sounds.
s. 221. _Double consonants rare._--It cannot be too clearly understood that
in words like _pitted_, _stabbing_, _massy_, &c. there is no real
reduplication of the sounds of _t_, _b_, and _s_, respectively. Between the
words _pitted_ (as with the small-pox) and _pitied_ (as being an object of
pity) there is a difference in {155} spelling only. In speech the words are
identical. _The reduplication of the consonant is in English, and the
generality of languages, a conventional mode of expressing upon paper the
shortness (dependence) of the vowel that precedes._
s. 222. Real reduplications of consonants, _i.e._, reduplications of their
_sound_, are, in all languages, extremely rare. I am fully aware of certain
statements made respecting the Laplandic and Finlandic languages, _viz._,
that doubled consonants are, in them, of common occurrence. Notwithstanding
this, I have an impression that it is generally under one condition that
true reduplication takes place. In compound and derived words, where the
original root _ends_, and the superadded affix _begins_ with the same
letter, there is a reduplication of the sound, and not otherwise. In the
word _soulless_, the _l_ is doubled to the ear as well as to the eye; and
it is a false pronunciation to call it _souless_ (_soless_). In the
"Deformed Transformed" it is made to rhyme with _no less_, improperly.
"Clay, not dead but soulless,
Though no mortal man would choose thee,
An immortal no less
Deigns not to refuse thee."
In the following words, all of which are compounds, we have true specimens
of the doubled consonant.
_n_ is doubled in _unnatural_, _innate_, _oneness_.
_l_ -- _soulless_, _civil-list_, _palely_.
_k_ -- _book-case_.
_t_ -- _seaport-town_.
It must not, however, be concealed, that, in the mouths even of correct
speakers, one of the doubled sounds is often dropped.
s. 223. _True aspirates rare._--The criticism applied to words like
_pitted_, &c., applies also to words like _Philip_, _thin_, _thine_, &c.
There is therein no sound of _h_. How the so-called aspirates differ from
their corresponding lenes has not yet been determined. That it is _not_ by
the addition of _h_ is evident. _Ph_ and _th_ are conventional modes of
spelling simple single sounds, which might better be expressed by simple
single signs. {156}
In our own language the _true_ aspirates, like the true duplications, are
found only in compound words; and there they are often slurred in the
pronunciation.
We find _p_ and _h_ in the words _haphazard_, _upholder_.
-- _b_ and _h_ -- _abhorrent_, _cub-hunting_.
-- _f_ and _h_ -- _knife-handle_, _offhand_.
-- _v_ and _h_ -- _stave-head_.
-- _d_ and _h_ -- _adhesive_, _childhood_.
-- _t_ and _h_ -- _nuthook_.
-- _th_ and _h_ -- _withhold_.
-- _k_ and _h_ -- _inkhorn_, _bakehouse_.
-- _g_ and _h_ -- _gig-horse_.
-- _s_ and _h_ -- _race-horse_, _falsehood_.
-- _z_ and _h_ -- _exhibit_, _exhort_.
-- _r_ and _h_ -- _perhaps_.
-- _l_ and _h_ -- _well-head_, _foolhardy_.
-- _m_ and _h_ -- _Amherst_.
-- _n_ and _h_ -- _unhinge_, _inherent_, _unhappy_.
Now in certain languages the _true_ aspirates are of common occurrence,
_i.e._, sounds like the _t_ in _nuthook_, the _ph_ in _haphazard_, &c., are
as frequent as the sounds of _p_, _b_, _s_, &c. In the spelling of these
sounds by means of the English we are hampered by the circumstance of _th_
and _ph_ being already used in a different sense.
* * * * *
{157}
CHAPTER IV.
EUPHONY; THE PERMUTATION AND THE TRANSITION OF LETTERS.
s. 224. 1. Let there be two syllables, of which the one ends in _m_, and
the other begins with _r_, as we have in the syllables _num-_ and _-rus_ of
the Latin word _numerus_.
2. Let an ejection of the intervening letters bring these two syllables
into immediate contact, _numrus_. The _m_ and _r_ form an unstable
combination. To remedy this there is a tendency (mark, not an absolute
necessity) to insert an intervening sound.
In English, the form which the Latin word _numerus_ takes is _num_b_er_; in
Spanish, _nom_b_re_. The _b_ makes no part of the original word, but has
been inserted for the sake of euphony; or, to speak more properly, by a
euphonic process. The word euphony is derived from [Greek: eu] (_well_),
and [Greek: phone] (_f[^o]nae_, a voice). The province of euphony has not
been very accurately determined.
s. 225. In the word _number_, _nombre_, the letter inserted was _b_; and
for _b_ being the particular letter employed, there is a reason derived
from the _system_ of articulate sounds.
1. That the letter inserted should be a consonant is evident. The _vowel_
_e_ (in _num_e_rus_) had been previously ejected.
2. That it should be a mute is evident. A liquid would have given the
unstable or unpronounceable combinations _mnr_, _mlr_, _mrr_, _mmr_.
3. That it should be a consonant, either of series _b_ or of series _s_,
was natural; it being series _b_ and series _s_ with which _m_ and _r_ are
respectively connected.
4. That it should be a consonant of series _b_, rather than one of series
_s_, we collect from the fact that _msr_ (_numsrus_) or _mzr_ (_numzrus_)
give inharmonious, and, consequently, unstable combinations. {158}
5. That of the _b_ series, it should be _b_ or _v_ (flat) rather than _p_
or _f_ (sharp), we infer from the fact of _m_ and _r_ both being flat.
6. Of _v_ and _b_, the latter alone gives a stable combination, so that we
have the Spanish form _nom_b_re_, and not _nom_v_re_.
In this we have an illustration of the use of attending to the nature and
connections of articulate sounds in general.
s. 226. The affinity of _m_ for the series _b_, of _n_ for the series _t_,
gives occasion to further euphonic changes. The combinations _mt_, _md_,
_mth_, _mdh_, are unstable. The syllables _emt_, _emd_, are liable to one
of two modifications. Either _p_ or _b_ will be inserted, and so make them
_empt_ (as in _tempt_), _embd_ (as in _Embden_), or else the _m_ will
become _n_, forming the syllable _ent_, _end_, _enth_, _endh_.
Similar tendencies, in a certain degree, affect the combinations _enp_,
_enb_. They are liable to become _emp_, or _emb_. Any one may see that the
word _enperor_ embarrasses the utterance.
s. 227. The combination _tupt_ is stable, so also is the combination
_tuft_. But the combination _tupth_ is unstable: since the _p_ is lene, the
_th_ is a (so-called) aspirate. Hence arises a process of accommodation by
which the word becomes either _tupt_ or _tufth_ (_tufth_).
In respect to the unstable combination _tupth_, we may observe this, _viz._
that the ways of altering it are two. Either the first letter may be
accommodated to the second, _tufth_, or the second may be accommodated to
the first, _tupt_. Which of these two changes shall take place is
determined by the particular habit of the language. In Greek we add to the
radical syllable [Greek: tup]-, the inflectional syllable -[Greek: then].
The _first_ letter, [pi], is accommodated to the second, [theta], and the
word becomes [Greek: tuphthen] (_tyfthaen_), as in [Greek: etuphthen]
(_etyfthaen_). In English we add to the radical syllable _stag_, the
inflectional syllable _s_. Here the _second_ letter is accommodated to the
first, and the resulting word is not _staks_, but _stagz_.
s. 228. The Irish Gaelic, above most other languages, illustrates a
euphonic principle that modifies the vowels of a word. The vowels _a_, _o_,
_u_, are full, whilst _i_, _e_, _y_, are small. Now if to a syllable
containing a small vowel, as _buil_, there be added {159} a syllable
containing a broad one, as _-am_, a change takes place. Either the first
syllable is accommodated to the second, or the second to the first; so that
the vowels respectively contained in them are either both full or both
small. Hence arises, in respect to the word quoted, either the form
_bu_a_l_a_m_, or else the form _bu_i_l_i_m_.
s. 229. In the words _give_ and _gave_ we have a change of tense expressed
by a change of vowel. In the words _price_ and _prize_ a change of meaning
is expressed by a change of consonant. In _clothe_ and _clad_ there is a
change both of a vowel and of a consonant. In the words _to use_ and _a
use_ there is a similar change, although it is not expressed by the
spelling. To the ear the verb _to use_ ends in _z_, although not to the
eye. The following are instances of the permutation of letters.
_Permutation of Vowels._
_a_ to _[)e]_, as _man_, _men_.
_a_ to _oo_, as _stand_, _stood_.
_a_ to _u_, as _dare_, _durst_.
_a_ to _[=e]_, as _was_, _were_.
_ea_ to _o_, as _speak_, _spoken_.
_ea=[)e]_ to _ea=[=e]_, as _breath_, _breathe_.
_ee_ to _[)e]_, as _deep_, _depth_.
_ea_ to _o_, as _bear_, _bore_.
_i_ to _a_, as _spin_, _span_.
_i_ to _u_, as _spin_, _spun_.
_i=ei_ to _o_, as _smite_, _smote_.
_i=ei_ to _[)i]_, as _smite_, _smitten_.
_i_ to _a_, as _give_, _gave_.
_i=ei_ to _a_, as _rise_, _raise_.
_[)i]_ to _e_, as _sit_, _set_.
_ow_ to _ew_, as _blow_, _blew_.
_o_ to _e_, as _strong_, _strength_.
_oo_ to _ee_, as _tooth_, _teeth_.
_o_ to _i_, as _top_, _tip_.
_o_ to _e_, as _old_, _elder_; _tell_, _told_.
_[)o]_ to _e_, as _brother_, _brethren_.
_[=o]=oo_ to _i_, as _do_, _did_.
_o=oo_ to _o=[)u]_, as _do_, _done_.
_oo_ to _o_, as _choose_, _chose_.
{160}
_Permutation of Consonants._
_f_ to _v_, _life_, _live_; _calf_, _calves_.
_th_ to _dh_, _breath_, _to breathe_.
_dh_ to _d_, _seethe_, _sod_; _clothe_, _clad_.
_d_ to _t_, _build_, _built_.
_s_ to _z_, _use_, _to use_.
_s_ to _r_, _was_, _were_; _lose_, _forlorn_.
In _have_ and _had_ we have the _ejection_ of a sound; in _work_ and
_wrought_, the _transposition_ of one. Important changes are undergone by
the sounds _k_, _g_, and the allied ones _nk_, _ng_, _y_, as will be seen
in the chapter on verbs.
_Permutation of Combinations._
_ie_=_i_ to _ow_, as _grind_, _ground_.
_ow_ to _i_=_ei_, as _mouse_, _mice_; _cow_, _kine_.
_ink_ to _augh_, as _drink_, _draught_.
_ing_ to _ough_, as _bring_, _brought_.
_y_ (formerly _g_), _ough_, as _buy_, _bought_.
_igh_=_ei_ to _ough_, as _fight_, _fought_.
_eek_ to _ough_, as _seek_, _sought_.
It must be noticed that the list above is far from being an exhaustive one.
The expression too of the changes undergone has been rendered difficult on
account of the imperfection of our orthography. The whole section has been
written in illustration of the meaning of the word _permutation_, rather
than for any specific object in grammar.
s. 230. In all the words above the change of sound has been brought about
by the grammatical inflection of the word wherein it occurs. This is the
case with the words _life_ and _live_, and with all the rest. With the
German word _leben_, compared with the corresponding word _live_, in
English, the change is similar. It is brought about, however, not by a
grammatical inflection, but by a difference of time, and by a difference of
place. This indicates the distinction between the permutation of letters
and the transition of letters. In dealing with permutations, we compare
different parts of speech; in dealing with transitions, we compare
different languages, or different stages of a single language.
* * * * *
{161}
CHAPTER V.
ON THE FORMATION OF SYLLABLES.
s. 231. In respect to the formation of syllables, I am aware of no more
than one point that requires any especial consideration.
In certain words, of more than one syllable, it is difficult to say to
which syllable an intervening consonant belongs. For instance, does the _v_
in _river_, and the _v_ in _fever_, belong to the first or the second
syllable? Are the words to be divided thus, _ri-ver_, _fe-ver_? or thus,
_riv-er_, _fev-er_?
The solution of the question lies by no means on the surface.
In the first place, the case is capable of being viewed in two points of
view--an etymological and a phonetic one.
That the _c_ and _r_ in _become_, _berhymed_, &c. belong to the second
syllable, we determine at once by taking the words to pieces; whereby we
get the words _come_ and _rhymed_ in an isolated independent form. But this
fact, although it settles the point in etymology, leaves it as it was in
phonetics; since it in nowise follows, that, because the _c_ in the
_simple_ word _come_ is exclusively attached to the letter that follows it,
it is, in the _compound_ word _become_, exclusively attached to it also.
To the following point of structure in the consonantal sounds the reader's
attention is particularly directed.
1. Let the vowel _a_ (as in _fate_) be sounded.--2. Let it be followed by
the consonant _p_, so as to form the syllable _[=a]p_. To form the sound of
_p_, it will be found that the lips close on the sound of _a_, and arrest
it. Now, if the lips be left to themselves they will not _remain_ closed on
the sound, but will open again, in a slight degree indeed, but in a degree
sufficient to cause a kind of vibration, or, at any rate, to allow an {162}
escape of the remainder of the current of breath by which the sound was
originally formed. To re-open in a slight degree is the natural tendency of
the lips in the case exhibited above.
Now, by an effort, let this tendency to re-open be counteracted. Let the
remaining current of breath be cut short. We have, then, only this, _viz._,
so much of the syllable _[=a]p_ as can be formed by the _closure_ of the
lips. All that portion of it that is caused by their re-opening is
deficient. The resulting sound seems truncated, cut short, or incomplete.
It is the sound of _p_, _minus_ the remnant of breath. All of the sound _p_
that is now left is formed, not by the _escape_ of the breath, but by the
_arrest_ of it.
The _p_ in _[=a]p_ is a _final_ sound. With initial sounds the case is
different. Let the lips be _closed_, and let an attempt be made to form the
syllable _pa_ by suddenly opening them. The sound appears incomplete; but
its incompleteness is at the _beginning_ of the sound, and not at the end
of it. In the natural course of things there would have been a current of
breath _preceding_, and this current would have given a vibration, now
wanting. All the sound that is formed here is formed, not by the _arrest_
of breath, but by the _escape_ of it.
I feel that this account of the mechanism of the apparently simple sound
_p_, labours under all the difficulties that attend the _description_ of a
sound; and for this reason I again request the reader to satisfy himself
either of its truth or its inaccuracy, before he proceeds to the
conclusions that will be drawn from it.
The account, however, being recognised, we have in the current natural
sound of _p_ two elements:--
1. That formed by the current of air and the closure of the lips, as in
_[=a]p_. This may be called the sound of breath _arrested_.
2. That formed by the current of air and the opening of the lips, as in
_p[=a]_. This may be called the sound of breath _escaping_.
Now what may be said of _p_ may be said of all the other consonants, the
words _tongue_, _teeth_, &c. being used instead of _lips_, according to the
case. {163}
Let the sound of breath arrested be expressed by [pi], and that of breath
escaping be expressed by [varpi], the two together form the current natural
sound _p_ ([pi]+[varpi]=_p_).
Thus _[=a]p_ (as quoted above) is _p_ - [varpi], or [pi]; whilst _pa_
(sounded similarly) is _p_ - [pi], or [varpi].
In the formation of syllables, I consider that the sound of breath arrested
belongs to the first, and the sound of breath escaping to the second
syllable; that each sound being expressed by a separate sign, the word
_happy_ is divided thus, _ha[pi]-[varpi]y_; and that such is the case with
all consonants between two syllables. The _whole_ consonant belongs neither
to one syllable nor the other. Half of it belongs to each. The
reduplication of the _p_ in _happy_, the _t_ in _pitted_, &c, is a mere
point of spelling, of which more will be said in the chapter on
orthography.
* * * * *
{164}
CHAPTER VI.
ON QUANTITY.
s. 232. The dependent vowels, as the _a_ in _fat_, _i_ in _fit_, _u_ in
_but_, _o_ in _not_, have this character; _viz._ they are all uttered with
rapidity, and pass quickly in the enunciation, the voice not resting on
them. This rapidity of utterance becomes more evident when we contrast with
them the prolonged sounds of the _a_ in _fate_, _ee_ in _feet_, _oo_ in
_book_, _o_ in _note_; wherein the utterance is retarded, and wherein the
voice rests, delays, or is prolonged. The _f_ and _t_ of _fate_ are
separated by a longer interval than the _f_ and _t_ of _fat_; and the same
is the case with _fit_, _feet_, &c.
Let the _n_ and the _t_ of _not_ be each as 1, the _o_ also being as 1:
then each letter, consonant or vowel, shall constitute 1/3 of the whole
word.
Let, however, the _n_ and _t_ of _note_ be each as 1, the _o_ being as 2.
Then, instead of each consonant constituting 1/3 of the whole word, it
shall constitute but 1/4.
Upon the comparative extent to which the voice is prolonged, the division
of vowels and syllables into _long_ and _short_ has been established: the
_o_ in _note_ being long, the _o_ in _not_ being short. And the longness or
shortness of a vowel or syllable is said to be its quantity.
s. 233. The division of _vowels_ into long and short coincides _nearly_
with the division of them into independent and dependent. Mark the word
_vowels_, and mark the word _nearly_. In the length and shortness of vowels
there are degrees. This is especially the case with the broad vowels. The
_a_ in _father_ is capable of being pronounced either very quickly, or very
slowly. It may be attend most rapidly and yet preserve its broad character,
_i.e._, become neither the _a_ in _fat_, nor the _a_ in _fate_. {165}
In the independence and dependence of vowels there are no degrees.
Subject to the views laid down in the next section, the vowel _ee_ in
_seeing_ is long, and it is certainly independent. Whether the _syllable
see-_ be long is another question.
1. All long vowels are independent, but all independent vowels are not
long.
2. All dependent vowels are short, but all short vowels are not dependent.
Clear notions upon these matters are necessary for determining the
structure of the English and classical metres.
s. 234. The qualified manner in which it was stated that the _vowel_ in the
word _seeing_ was long, and the attention directed to the word _vowels_ in
the preceding section, arose from a distinction, that is now about to be
drawn, between the length of _vowels_ and the length of _syllables_.
The independent vowel in the syllable _see-_ is long; and long it remains,
whether it stand as it is, or be followed by a consonant, as in _seen_, or
by a vowel, as in _see-ing_.
The dependent vowel in the word _sit_ is short. If followed by a vowel it
becomes unpronounceable, except as the _ea_ in _seat_ or the _i_ in
_sight_. By a consonant, however, it may be followed, and still retain its
dependent character and also its shortness. Such is the power it has in the
word quoted, _sit_. Followed by a _second_ consonant, it still retains its
shortness, _e.g._, _sits_. Whatever the comparative length of the
_syllables_, _see_ and _seen_, _sit_ and _sits_, may be, the length of
their respective _vowels_ is the same.
Now, if we determine the character of the syllable by the character of the
vowel, all syllables are short wherein there is a short vowel, and all are
long wherein there is a long one. Measured by the quantity of the vowel the
word _sits_ is short, and the syllable _see-_ in _seeing_ is long.
But it is well known that this view is not the view commonly taken of the
syllables _see_ (in _seeing_) and _sits_. It is well known, that, in the
eyes of a classical scholar, the _see_ (in _seeing_) is short, and that in
the word _sits_ the _i_ is long. The classic differs from the Englishman
thus,--_He measures his {166} quantity, not by the length of the vowel but,
by the length of the syllable taken altogether._ The perception of this
distinction enables us to comprehend the following statements.
I. That vowels long by nature may _appear_ to become short by position, and
_vice vers[^a]_.
II. That, by a laxity of language, the _vowel_ may be said to have changed
its quantity, whilst it is the _syllable_ alone that has been altered.
III. That, if one person measures his quantities by the vowels, and another
by the syllables, what is short to the one, shall be long to the other, and
_vice vers[^a]_. The same is the case with nations.
IV. That one of the most essential differences between the English and the
classical languages is that the quantities (as far as they go) of the first
are measured by the vowel, those of the latter by the syllable. To a Roman
the word _monument_ consists of two short syllables and one long one; to an
Englishman it contains three short syllables.
These remarks are appreciated when we consider the comparative characters
of the classical and the English prosody.
* * * * *
{167}
CHAPTER VII.
ON ACCENT.
s. 235. In the word _tyrant_ there is an emphasis, or stress, upon the
first syllable. In the word _presume_ there is an emphasis, or stress, on
the second syllable. This emphasis, or stress, is called _Accent_. The
circumstance of a syllable bearing an accent is sometimes expressed by a
mark ('); in which case the word is said to be accentuated, _i.e._, to have
the accent signified in writing.
Words accented on the last syllable--_Brig['a]de_, _pret['e]nce_,
_harpo['o]n_, _reli['e]ve_, _det['e]r_, _ass['u]me_, _beso['u]ght_,
_ber['e]ft_, _bef['o]re_, _abro['a]d_, _ab['o]de_, _abstr['u]se_,
_interm['i]x_, _super['a]dd_, _cavali['e]r_.
Words accented on the last syllable but one--_An'chor_, _ar'gue_,
_h['a]sten_, _f['a]ther_, _f['o]xes_, _sm['i]ting_, _h['u]sband_,
_m['a]rket_, _v['a]pour_, _b['a]refoot_, _arch['a]ngel_, _besp['a]tter_,
_dis['a]ble_, _terr['i]fic_.
Words accented on the last syllable but two--_R['e]gular_, _an'tidote_,
_for'tify_, _susc['e]ptible_, _incontrov['e]rtible_.
Words accented on the last syllable but three (rare)--_R['e]ceptacle_,
_r['e]gulating_, _t['a]lkativeness_, _['a]bsolutely_, _l['u]minary_,
_in['e]vitable_, &c.
A great number of words are distinguished by the accent alone. The
following list is from Nares' Orthoepy, a work to which the reader is
referred.
An _['a]ttribute_. To _attr['i]bute_.
The month _A['u]gust_. An _aug['u]st_ person.
A _com'pact_. _Comp['a]ct_ (close).
To _con'jure_ (magically). _Conj['u]re_ (enjoin).
_Des'ert_, wilderness. _Des['e]rt_, merit.
_Inv['a]lid_, not valid. _Inval['i]d_, a sickly person.
_M['i]nute_, 60 seconds. _Min['u]te_, small.
_S['u]pine_, part of speech. _Sup['i]ne_, careless, &c.
{168}
That class of words that by a change of accent are converted from nouns
into verbs (_s['u]rvey_, _surv['e]y_, _c['o]ntrast_, _contr['a]st_, &c.)
will be noticed more at large in the Chapter on Derivation.
s. 236. In words like _th['i]nking_, _f['o]xes_, _lon'ger_, _len'gthen_,
&c. we have two parts; first the original word, the root, or the radical
part, as _think_, _fox_, _long_, _length_, &c.; and next, the inflectional,
or the subordinate part, _-ing_, _-es_, _-er_, _-en_, &c.
To assert as a universal rule that the _accent is always on the root, and
never on the subordinate part of a word_, is too much. Although in the
_English_ language such an assertion (with one exception) is found true; by
the French and other languages it is invalidated.
In words like _len'g-then-ing_, we have a _second_ inflectional or
subordinate syllable; and the accent remains in its original place,
_absolutely, but not relatively_. _It is all the farther from the end of
the word._ Besides indicating the propriety of determining the place of the
accent by counting from the end, rather than the beginning of a word, this
circumstance indicates something else.
Imagine the English participles to be declined, and to possess cases,
formed by the addition of fresh syllables. In this case the word
_len'gthening_ would become a quadri-syllable. But to throw the accent to
the fourth syllable from the end is inconvenient. Hence a necessity of
removing it from the radical, and placing it on an inflectional syllable.
The German word _l['e]ben_ (to _live_) illustrates the foregoing sentence.
_L['e]b-_ is the root, _l['e]b-end_=_living_, from whence
_leb['e]ndig_=_lively_ (with the accent on an inflectional syllable),
although this last word might without inconvenience have been accented on
the first syllable; that being only the third from the end.
Confusion between the radical and inflectional syllables of a word, arising
from the situation of the accent, may work the deterioration of a language.
s. 237. In _t['y]rant_ and _pres['u]me_, we deal with single words; and in
each _word_ we determine which _syllable_ is accented. {169} Contrasted
with the sort of accent that follows, this may be called a _verbal_ accent.
In the line,
Better for _us_, perhaps, it might appear,
(POPE'S _Essay on Man_, I. 169.)
the pronoun _us_ is strongly brought forward. An especial stress or
emphasis is laid upon it, denoting that _there are other beings to whom it
might not appear_, &c. This is collected from the context. Here there is a
_logical_ accent. "When one word in a sentence is distinguished by a
stress, as more important than the rest, we may say that it is
_emphatical_, or that an _emphasis_ is laid upon it. When one syllable in a
word is distinguished by a stress, and more audible than the rest, we say
that it is accented, or that an accent is put upon it. Accent, therefore,
is to syllables what emphasis is to sentences; it distinguishes one from
the crowd, and brings it forward to observation."--(Nares' Orthoepy, Part
II. Chap. I.)
s. 238. Accent plays an important part in determining the nature of certain
compound words--For this, see the Chapter on Composition.
It also plays an important part in determining the nature of the English
metres--See Prosody.
Thirdly (the subject of the present section), it plays an important part in
all systems of orthography.
The quotation from Professor Lee's Hebrew Grammar, in p. 149, is referred
to; and a particular attention to a somewhat difficult subject is
requisite.
The _u_ in the word _monument_ is what a classic would call _short_.
The second _syllable_ in the word _monument_ is what a classical scholar
would call _short_. The vowel is _short_, and the syllable taken altogether
is _short_. Herein it agrees with the first syllable _mon-_. It differs,
however, from the syllable _mon-_ in being destitute of an accent,
_m['o]nument_. With the third syllable _-ment_, it agrees in the eyes of an
Englishman, but differs in the eyes of a scholar. The vowels _u_ and _e_
are equally short, and, as the Englishman measures by the vowel {170} the
syllables _-u_ and _-ment_ are both short. Not so, however, with the
scholar. He measures by the syllable and determines that the _e_, although
naturally a short vowel, is made _long_ by position. However, in being each
destitute of an accent the syllables _-u_ and _-ment_ agree. Be it remarked
a second time that the accent in _m['o]nument_ lies on the first syllable.
Now the _-u_ in _m['o]nument_ although _short_, is not _dependent_.
If, however, the syllable _-nu_ take an accent; that is, if the place of
the accent be removed from the first to the second syllable, the vowel _u_
still being kept short, we have a word which we spell thus, _monumment_.
Now the _u_ in _monumment_ is not only short, but dependent. It is upon
this effect of an accent that the quotation from Lee's Hebrew Grammar, p.
149, especially bears.
And now two questions arise:--1. How is it that the accent has the effect
of rendering such a syllable as the _u_ in _monumment_ dependent? 2. Why do
we in spelling such a syllable double the consonant?
An accent falling upon a syllable must, of necessity, do one of two things:
it must affect the vowel, or it must affect the consonant. If it affect the
vowel, the vowel becomes the predominant part of the syllable, as in
_m['o]nooment_; but, if it affect the consonant, the consonant becomes the
predominant part of the syllable, as _monum'ment_.
In words like _monumment_ the consonant is, strictly speaking, as single as
it is in _monument_, or _monooment_. Its _absolute_ sound is the same. Not
so its _relative_ sound. This is exaggerated by two circumstances:--1, The
comparative shortness of the vowel _u_; 2, the fact of the accent falling
on it. The increased relative importance of the letter _m_ in the word
_monumment_ is mistaken for a reduplication of the sound. This is the
reason why in most languages the shortness of a vowel is expressed by the
doubling of the consonant following; this doubling being no true
reduplication of the sound, but a mere orthographical conventionality.
s. 239. Accent and quantity, as may have been collected from pp. 164-167,
do _not_ coincide. Nothing shows this more {171} clearly than words like
the adjective _aug['u]st_, and the substantive _A['u]gust_ (the month),
where the quantity remains the same, although the accent is different. The
following quotation from Mr. Guest's English Rhythms is made for the sake
of four things:--
1. Of showing that the generality of writers have the credit of confusing
accent with quantity--
2. Of showing that there is a reason for such a confusion having existed--
3. Of indicating the propriety of the expressions in italics--It is not
stated that the consonant _c_ is doubled, but that it is added to the first
syllable. The difference lies, not in its reduplication, but in its
distribution.
4. Of taking a slight exception--A syllable (accented or unaccented) must
be either independent or dependent; if the latter, then in most immediate
contact with the consonant that follows.
"Besides the increase of loudness, and the sharper tone which
distinguishes the accented syllable, there is also a tendency to dwell
upon it, or, in other words, to lengthen its quantity. We cannot
increase the loudness or the sharpness of a tone without a certain
degree of muscular action: and to put the muscles in motion requires
time. It would seem that the time required for producing a perceptible
increase in the loudness or sharpness of a tone is greater than that of
pronouncing some of our shorter syllables. If we attempt, for instance,
to throw the accent on the first syllable of the word _become_, we must
either lengthen the vowel, and pronounce the word _bee-come_, _or add
the adjoining consonant to the first syllable, and so pronounce the
word_ _bec-ome_. We often find it convenient to lengthen the quantity
even of the longer syllables, when we wish to give them a very strong
and marked accent. Hence, no doubt, arose the vulgar notion, that
accent always lengthens the quantity of a syllable.
"It is astonishing how widely this notion has misled men, whose
judgment, in most other matters of criticism, it would be very unsafe
to question. Our earlier writers, almost to a man, confound accent with
quantity."--B. i. C. iv.
* * * * *
{172}
CHAPTER VIII.
THE PRINCIPLES OF ORTHOEPY.
s. 240. The present chapter is one, not upon the details of the
pronunciation of the English language, but upon the principles of orthoepy.
For the details of pronunciation the reader is referred to Nares' Orthoepy,
and to the common pronouncing dictionaries, with the preliminary
recommendation to use them with caution. _Orthoepy_, a word derived from
the Greek _orthon_ (_upright_), and _epos_ (_a word_), signifies the right
utterance of words. Orthoepy differs from orthography by determining how
words are spoken, whereas orthography decides how they are spelt. The one
is a question of speech, the other a question of spelling. Orthography
presupposes orthoepy.
s. 241. Of pronunciation there are two kinds, the colloquial and the
rhetorical. In common conversation we pronounce the _i_ in _wind_, like the
_i_ in _bit_; in rehearsing, or in declamation, however, we pronounce it
like the _i_ in _bite_; that is, we give it a diphthongal sound. In reading
the Scriptures we say _bless['e]d_; in current speech we say _blest_. It is
the same with many words occurring in poetry.
s. 242. Errors in pronunciation are capable of being classified. In the
first place, they may be arranged according to their situation. The man who
pronounces the verb _to surv['e]y_, as if it was _s['u]rvey_ (that is, with
the accent on the wrong syllable), errs in respect to the accentuation of
the word; the situation, or seat of his error, being the accent. To say
_or[=a]tor_ instead of _or[)a]tor_ is to err in respect to the quantity of
the word, the seat of the error being in the quantity; and to pronounce the
_a_ in _father_, as it is pronounced in Yorkshire, or the _s_ in _sound_,
as it is pronounced in Devonshire (that is, as _z_), is to err in {173} the
matter of the articulate sounds. To mispronounce a word because it is
misspelt[34] is only indirectly an error of orthoepy. It is an error, not
so much of orthoepy, as of orthography; and to give a wrong inflection to a
word is not bad pronunciation but bad grammar. For practical purposes,
however, many words that are really points of grammar and of orthography,
may be dealt with as points of orthoepy.
That the preceding classification is natural I am induced to believe by the
following circumstances. Errors in the way of articulation generally arise
from a source different from those of accent and of quantity. Errors in
accent and quantity are generally referable to insufficient grammatical or
etymological knowledge, whilst the errors of articulation betray a
provincial dialect.
The misdivision of syllables, an orthoepical error of a fourth kind, has in
the English, and perhaps in other languages, given rise to a peculiar class
of words. There have been those who have written _a nambassador_ for _an
ambassador_, misdividing the syllables, and misdistributing the sound of
the letter _n_. The double form (_a_ and _an_) of the English indefinite
article, encourages this misdivision. Now, in certain words an error of
this kind has had a permanent influence. The English word _nag_ is, in
Danish, _oeg_; the _n_, in English, having originally belonged to the
indefinite _an_, which preceded it. The words, instead of being divided
thus, _an ag_, were divided thus, _a nag_, and the fault became
perpetuated. That the Danish is the true form we collect, firstly, from the
ease with which the English form is accounted for, and, secondly, from the
old Saxon form _ehu_, Latin _equus_. In _adder_ we have the process
reversed. The true form is _nadder_, old English; _natter_, German. Here
the _n_ is taken from the substantive and added to the article. In _newt_
and _eft_ we have each form. The list of words of this sort can be
increased.
s. 243. In the second place, faults of pronunciation may be arranged
according to their cause.
{174}
1. _The fault of incompetent enunciation._--A person who says _sick_ for
_thick_, or _elebben_ for _eleven_, does so, not because he knows no
better, but because he cannot enounce the right sounds of _th_ and _v_. He
is _incompetent_ to it. His error is not one of ignorance. It is an
acoustic or a phonetic defect. As such it differs from--
2. _The fault of erroneous enunciation._--This is the error of a person who
talks of _jocholate_ instead of _chocolate_. It is not that he _cannot_
pronounce rightly, but that he mistakes the nature of the sound required.
Still more the person who calls _a hedge_ _a nedge_, and _an edge_ _a
hedge_.
s. 244. Incompetent enunciation, and erroneous enunciation are, however,
only the proximate and immediate causes of bad orthoepy. Amongst the remote
causes (the immediate causes of _erroneous_ enunciation) are the following.
I. _Undefined notions as to the language to which a word belongs._--The
flower called _anemone_ is variously pronounced. Those who know Greek say
_anem[=o]ne_, speaking as if the word was written _anemohny_. The mass say,
_anem[)o]ne_, speaking as if the word was written _anemmony_. Now, the
doubt here is as to the language of the word. If it be Greek, it is
_anem[=o]ne_.
[Greek: Haima rhodon tiktei, ta de dakrua tan anemonan].
BION.
And if it be English, it is (on the score of analogy) as undoubtedly
_an['e]mmony_. The pronunciation of the word in point is determined when we
have determined the language of it.
II. _Mistakes as to fact, the language of a word being determined._--To
know the word _anem[=o]ne_ to be Greek, and to use it as a Greek word, but
to call it _anem[)o]ny_, is not to be undecided as to a matter of language,
but to be ignorant as to a matter of quantity.
III. _Neglect of analogy._--Each and all of the following words, _orator_,
_theatre_, _senator_, &c. are in the Latin language, from whence they are
derived, accented on the second syllable; as _or['a]tor_, _the['a]tre_,
_sen['a]tor_. In English, on the contrary, they are accented on the first;
as _['o]rator_, _th['e]atre_, {175} _s['e]nator_. The same is the case with
many other words similarly derived. They similarly suffer a change of
accent. So many words do this, that it is the rule in English for words to
throw their accent from the second syllable (counting from the end of the
word) to the third. It was on the strength of this rule,--in other words,
on the analogies of _orator_, &c., that the English pronunciation of the
Greek word [Greek: anemone] was stated to be _an['e]mmone_. Now, to take a
word derived from the Latin, and to look to its original quantity only,
without consulting the analogies of other words similarly derived, is to be
neglectful of the analogies of our own language, and attentive to the
quantities of a foreign one.
These, amongst others, the immediate causes of erroneous enunciation, have
been adduced not for the sake of exhausting, but for the sake of
illustrating the subject.
s. 245. In matters of orthoepy it is the usual custom to appeal to one of
the following standards.
I. _The authority of scholars._--This is of value up to a certain point
only. The fittest person for determining the classical pronunciation of a
word like _anemone_ is the classical scholar; but the mere classical
scholar is far from being the fittest person to determine the analogies
that such a word follows in English.
II. _The usage of educated bodies, such as the bar, the pulpit, the senate,
_&c.__--These are recommended by two circumstances: 1. The chance that each
member of them is sufficiently a scholar in foreign tongues to determine
the original pronunciation of derived words, and sufficiently a critic in
his own language to be aware of the analogies that are in operation. 2. The
quantity of imitators that, irrespective of the worth of his pronunciation,
each individual can carry with him. On this latter ground the stage is a
sort of standard.
The objection to the authority of educated bodies is its impracticability.
It is only the usage of the component individuals that can be determined.
Of these many may carry with them the dialects of their provinces, so that,
although good standards on points of accent and quantity, they are bad ones
upon points of articulation. {176}
III. _The authority of societies constituted with the express purpose of
taking cognizance of the language of the country._--These, although
recognized in Italy and other parts of the Continent, have only been
proposed in Great Britain. Their inefficacy arises from the inutility of
attempting to fix that which, like language, is essentially fluctuating.
IV. _The authority of the written language._--The value of this may be
collected from the chapter on orthography.
V. These, amongst others, the standards that have been appealed to, are
adduced not for the sake of exhausting the subject, but to show the
unsatisfactory nature of authority in matters of speech.
s. 246. For a person, on a point of pronunciation, to trust to his own
judgment, he must be capable, with every word that he doubts about, of
discussing three questions:--
I. _The abstract or theoretical propriety of a certain pronunciation._--To
determine this he must have a sufficient knowledge of foreign tongues and a
sufficient knowledge of English analogies. He must also have some test by
which he can determine to what language an equivocal word belongs. Of tests
for this purpose, one, amongst others, is the following:--Let it be asked
whether the word _lens_ (in Optics) is English or Latin; whether it is to
be considered as a naturalised word or a strange one. The following fact
will give an answer. There is of the word _lens_ a plural number, and this
plural number is the English form _lenses_, and not the Latin form
_lentes_. The existence of an English inflection proves that the word to
which it belongs is English, although its absence does not prove the
contrary. That the word _anemone_ is English (and consequently pronounced
_anem[)o]ne_) we know from the plural form, which is not _anemonae_, but
_anemones_.
II. _The preference of one pronunciation over another on the score of
utility._--The word _ascetic_, for certain orthographical reasons,
notwithstanding its origin from the Greek word _aske['o]_, is called
_assetic_. From similar reasons there is a tendency to call the word
_sceptic_, _septic_. Theoretical propriety (and, be it observed, the
analogy of _ascetic_ has not been overlooked) is in {177} favour of the
word being sounded _skeptic_. The tendency of language, however, is the
other way. Now, the tendency of language and the theoretical propriety
being equal, there is an advantage (a point of utility) in saying
_skeptic_, which turns the scale. By sounding the _k_ we distinguish the
word _skeptic_ from _septic_. By this the language gains a point in
perspicuity, so that we can talk of the _anti-skeptic_ writings of Bishop
Warburton and of the _anti-septic_ properties of charcoal.
III. _The tendencies of language_.--From p. 153, we see that the
combination _ew_ is an unstable combination, that it has a tendency to
become _yoo_, and that the _y_ in _yoo_ has a tendency to change a _d_
preceding into _j_; in other words, we see the reason why, by many persons,
_dew_ is pronounced _jew_.
It is generally an easier matter to say how a word will be sounded a
hundred years hence, than to determine its present pronunciation.
Theoretical propriety is in favour of _dew_, so also is the view in the way
of utility. Notwithstanding this, posterity will say _jew_, for the
tendencies of language are paramount to all other influences.
We may now judge of the relative value of the three lines of criticism
exhibited above. Other things being equal, the language should have the
advantage of the doubt, and the utility of a given pronunciation should
prevail over its theoretical propriety. Where, however, the tendencies are
overwhelming, we can only choose whether, in doubtful words, we shall speak
like our ancestors, or like our posterity.[35]
* * * * *
{178}
CHAPTER IX.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF ORTHOGRAPHY.
s. 247. Orthoepy determines the correct pronunciation of words, and deals
with a language as it is _spoken_; orthography determines the correct
spelling of words, and deals with a language as it is _written_. The term
is derived from the Greek words _orthos_ (_upright_), and _graph['e]_, or
_grafae_ (_writing_). Orthography is less essential to language than
orthoepy; since all languages are spoken, whilst but a few languages are
written. Orthography presupposes orthoepy. Orthography addresses itself to
the eye, orthoepy to the ear. Orthoepy deals with the articulate sounds
that constitute syllables and words; orthography treats of the signs by
which such articulate sounds are expressed in writing. A _letter_ is the
sign of an articulate (and, in the case of _h_, of an inarticulate) sound.
A full and perfect system of orthography consists in two things:--1. The
possession of a sufficient and consistent alphabet. 2. The right
application of such an alphabet. This position may be illustrated more
fully.
s. 248. First, in respect to a full and perfect alphabet. Let there be in a
certain language, simple single articulate sounds, to the number of forty,
whilst the simple single signs, or letters, expressive of them, amount to
no more than _thirty_. In this case the alphabet is insufficient. It is not
full enough: since ten of the simple single articulate sounds have no
corresponding signs whereby they may be expressed. In our own language, the
sounds (amongst others) of _th_ in _thin_, and of _th_ in _thine_, are
simple and single, whilst there is no sign equally simple and single to
spell them with.
An alphabet, however, may be sufficient, and yet imperfect. It may err on
the score of inconsistency. Let there be in a {179} given language two
simple single sounds, for instance, the _p_ in _pate_, and the _f_ in
_fate_. Let these sounds stand in a given relation to each other. Let a
given sign, for instance, [Hebrew: P] (as is actually the case in Hebrew),
stand for the _p_ in _pate_; and let a second sign be required for the _f_
in _fate_. Concerning the nature of this latter sign, two views may be
taken. One framer of the alphabet, perceiving that the two sounds are mere
modifications of each other, may argue that no new sign (or letter) is at
all necessary, but that the sound of _f_ in _fate_ may be expressed by a
mere modification of the sign (or letter) [Hebrew: P], and may be written
thus [Hebrew: P], or thus [Hebrew: P]' or [Hebrew: P]', &c.; upon the
principle that, like sounds should be expressed by like signs. The other
framer of the alphabet, contemplating the difference between the two
sounds, rather than the likeness, may propose, not a mere modification of
the sign [Hebrew: P], but a letter altogether new, such as _f_, or [phi],
&c., upon the principle that sounds of a given degree of dissimilitude
should be expressed by signs of a different degree of dissimilitude.
Hitherto the expression of the sounds in point is a matter of convenience
only. No question has been raised as to its consistency or inconsistency.
This begins under conditions like the following:--Let there be in the
language in point the sounds of the _t_ in _tin_, and of the _th_ in
_thin_; which (it may be remembered) are precisely in the same relation to
each other as the _p_ in _pate_ and the _f_ in _fate_. Let each of these
sounds have a sign (or letter) expressive of it. Upon the nature of these
signs, or letters, will depend the nature of the sign or letter required
for the _f_ in _fate_. If the letter expressing the _th_ in _thin_ be a
mere modification of the letter expressing the _t_ in _tin_, then must the
letter expressive of the _f_ in _fate_ be a mere modification of the letter
expressing the _p_ in _pate_, and _vice vers[^a]_. If this be not the case,
the alphabet is inconsistent.
In the English alphabet we have (amongst others) the following
inconsistency:--The sound of the _f_ in _fate_, in a certain relation to
the sound of the _p_ in _pate_, is expressed by a totally distinct sign;
whereas, the sound of the _th_ in _thin_ (similarly related to the _t_ in
_tin_) is expressed by no new sign, but by a mere modification of _t_;
viz., _th_. {180}
A third element in the faultiness of an alphabet is the fault of erroneous
representation. The best illustration of this we get from the Hebrew
alphabet, where the sounds of [Hebrew: T] and [Hebrew: T`], mere
_varieties_ of each other, are represented by distinct and dissimilar
signs, whilst [Hebrew: T] and [Hebrew: T], sounds _specifically_ distinct,
are expressed by a mere modification of the same sign, or letter.
s. 249. _The right application of an alphabet._--An alphabet may be both
sufficient and consistent, accurate in its representation of the alliances
between articulate sounds, and in nowise redundant; and yet, withal, it may
be so wrongly applied as to be defective. Of defect in the use or
application of the letters of an alphabet, the three main causes are the
following:--
1. _Unsteadiness in the power of letters._--Of this there are two kinds. In
the first, there is one sound with two (or more) ways of expressing it.
Such is the sound of the letter _f_ in English. In words of Anglo-Saxon
origin it is spelt with a single simple sign, as in _fill_; whilst in Greek
words it is denoted by a combination, as in _Philip_. The reverse of this
takes place with the letter _g_; here a single sign has a double power; in
_gibbet_ it is sounded as _j_, and in _gibberish_ as _g_ in _got_.
2. _The aim at secondary objects._--The natural aim of orthography, of
spelling, or of writing (for the three terms mean the same thing), is to
express the _sounds_ of a language. Syllables and words it takes as they
meet the ear, it translates them by appropriate signs, and so paints them,
as it were, to the eye. That this is the natural and primary object is
self-evident; but beyond this natural and primary object there is, with the
orthographical systems of most languages, a secondary one, _viz._ the
attempt to combine with the representation of the sound of a given word the
representation of its history and origin.
The sound of the _c_, in _city_, is the sound that we naturally spell with
the letter _s_, and if the expression of this sound was the _only_ object
of our orthographists, the word would be spelt accordingly (_sity_). The
following facts, however, traverse {181} this simple view of the matter.
The word is a derived word; it is transplanted into our own language from
the Latin, where it is spelt with a _c_ (_civitas_); and to change this _c_
into _s_ conceals the origin and history of the word. For this reason the
_c_ is retained, although, as far as the mere expression of sounds (the
primary object in orthography) is concerned, the letter is a superfluity.
In cases like the one adduced the orthography is bent to a secondary end,
and is traversed by the etymology.
3. _Obsoleteness._--It is very evident that modes of spelling which at one
time may have been correct, may, by a change of pronunciation, become
incorrect; so that orthography becomes obsolete whenever there takes place
a change of speech without a correspondent change of spelling.
s. 250. _Difference between the change of a sound and the original false
expression of a sound._--The letter _u_ is a simple single sign. The sound
of _ow_, in _town_, is a diphthongal, or a double, sound. Now, in
Anglo-Saxon, the modern word _town_ is spelt _t['u]n_. In this case one of
two things must have taken place: either the word must have changed its
sound, or the Anglo-Saxons must have expressed it falsely and improperly.
s. 251. From the foregoing sections we arrive at the theory of a full and
perfect alphabet and orthography, of which a few (amongst many others) of
the chief conditions are as follow:--
1. That for every simple single sound, incapable of being represented by a
combination of letters, there be a simple single sign.
2. That sounds within a determined degree of likeness be represented by
signs within a determined degree of likeness; whilst sounds beyond a
certain degree of likeness be represented by distinct and different signs,
_and that uniformly_.
3. That no sound have more than one sign to express it.
4. That no sign express more than one sound.
5. That the primary aim of orthography be to express the sounds of words,
and not their histories. {182}
6. That changes of speech be followed by corresponding changes of spelling.
With these principles in our mind we may measure the imperfections of our
own and of other alphabets.
s. 252. Previous to considering the sufficiency or insufficiency of the
English alphabet, it is necessary to enumerate the elementary articulate
sounds of the language. The enumeration of these is, strictly speaking, a
point, not of orthography, but of orthoepy. It is, however, so intimately
connected with the former that the present chapter seems its proper place.
The vowels belonging to the English language are the _twelve_ following:--
1. That of _a_ in _father_. | 7. That of _e_ in _bed_.
2. -- _a_ -- _fat_. | 8. -- _i_ -- _pit_.
3. -- _a_ -- _fate_. | 9. -- _ee_ -- _feet_.
4. -- _aw_ -- _bawl_. | 10. -- _u_ -- _bull_.
5. -- _o_ -- _not_. | 11. -- _oo_ -- _fool_.
6. -- _o_ -- _note_. | 12. -- _u_ -- _duck_.
For the relations of these see Chapter II.
The diphthongal sounds are _four_.
1. That of _ou_ in _house_.
2. -- _ew_ -- _new_.
3. -- _oi_ -- _oil_.
4. -- _i_ -- _bite_.
This last sound being most incorrectly expressed by the single letter _i_.
The consonantal sounds are, 1. the two semivowels; 2. the four liquids; 3.
fourteen out of the sixteen mutes; 4. _ch_ in _chest_, and _j_ in _jest_,
compound sibilants; 5. _ng_, as in _king_; 6. the aspirate _h_. In all,
twenty-four.
1. _w_ as in _wet_. | 13. _th_ -- _thin_.
2. _y_ -- _yet_. | 14. _th_ -- _thine_.
3. _m_ -- _man_. | 15. _g_ -- _gun_.
4. _n_ -- _not_. | 16. _k_ -- _kind_.
5. _l_ -- _let_. | 17. _s_ -- _sin_.
6. _r_ -- _run_. | 18. _z_ -- _zeal_.
7. _p_ -- _pate_. | 19. _sh_ -- _shine_.
{183}
8. _b_ -- _ban_. | 20. _z_ -- _azure_, _glazier_.
9. _f_ -- _fan_. | 21. _ch_ -- _chest_.
10. _v_ -- _van_. | 22. _j_ -- _jest_.
11. _t_ -- _tin_. | 23. _ng_ -- _king_.
12. _d_ -- _din_. | 24. _h_ -- _hot_.
Some writers would add to these the additional sound of the _['e] ferm['e]_
of the French; believing that the vowel in words like _their_ and _vein_
has a different sound from the vowel in words like _there_ and _vain_. For
my own part I cannot detect such a difference either in my own speech or
that of my neighbours; although I am far from denying that in certain
_dialects_ of our language such may have been the case. The following is an
extract from the Danish grammar for Englishmen, by Professor Rask, whose
eye, in the matter in question, seems to have misled his ear: "The _['e]
ferm['e]_, or _close ['e]_, is very frequent in Danish, but scarcely
perceptible in English; unless in such words as, _their_, _vein_, _veil_,
which appear to sound a little different from _there_, _vain_, _vale_."
The vowels being twelve, the diphthongs four, and the consonantal sounds
twenty-four, we have altogether as many as forty sounds, some being so
closely allied to each other as to be mere modifications, and others being
combinations rather than simple sounds; all, however, agreeing in requiring
to be expressed by letters or by combinations of letters, and to be
distinguished from each other.
Now, although every sound specifically distinct should be expressed by a
distinct sign, it does not follow that mere modifications or varieties
(especially if they be within certain limits) should be so expressed. In
the Greek language sounds as like as the _o_ in _not_ and the _o_ in _note_
are expressed by signs as unlike as [omicron] and [omega]; that is, by the
letters _omicron_ and _omega_ respectively; and so it is with [epsilon] and
[eta]. All that can be said in this case is, that it is the character of
the Greek alphabet to represent a difference which the English neglects.
With respect to the diphthongs it is incorrect, uncommon, and inconvenient
to represent them by simple single signs, rather than by combinations. In
the English language the sounds {184} of _ou_, _ew_, and _oi_, are properly
spelt with two letters. Not so, however, of _i_ in _bite_.
The compound sibilants may also be expressed not by single signs, but by
the combinations _tsh_ and _dzh_; although, for certain reasons, such a
mode of spelling is inconvenient. With these views we may appreciate,
I. _The insufficiency of the English alphabet._
A. _In respect to the vowels._--Notwithstanding the fact that the sounds of
the _a_ in _father_, _fate_, and _fat_, and of the _o_ and the _aw_ in
_note_, _not_, and _bawl_, are modifications of _a_ and _o_ respectively,
we have still _six_ vowel sounds specifically distinct, for which (_y_
being a consonant rather than a vowel) we have but _five_ signs. The _u_ in
_duck_, specifically distinct from the _u_ in _bull_, has no specifically
distinct sign to represent it.
B. _In respect to the consonants._--The _th_ in _thin_, the _th_ in
_thine_, the _sh_ in _shine_, the _z_ in _azure_, and the _ng_ in _king_,
five sounds specifically distinct, and five sounds perfectly simple require
corresponding signs, which they have not.
II. _Its inconsistency._--The _f_ in _fan_, and the _v_ in _van_ sounds in
a certain degree of relationship to _p_ and _b_, are expressed by signs as
unlike as _f_ is unlike _p_, and as _v_ is unlike b. The sound of the _th_
in _thin_, the _th_ in _thine_, the _sh_ in _shine_, similarly related to
_t_, _d_, and _s_, are expressed by signs as like _t_, _d_, and _s_,
respectively, as _th_ and _sh_.
The compound sibilant sound of _j_ in _jest_ is spelt with the single sign
_j_, whilst the compound sibilant sound in _chest_ is spelt with the
combination _ch_.
III. _Erroneousness._--The sound of the _ee_ in _feet_ is considered the
long (independent) sound of the _e_ in _bed_; whereas it is the long
(independent) sound of the _i_ in _pit_.
The _i_ in _bite_ is considered as the long (independent) sound of the _i_
in _pit_; whereas it is a diphthongal sound.
The _u_ in _duck_ is looked upon as a modification of the _u_ in _bull_;
whereas it is a specifically distinct sound.
The _ou_ in _house_ and the _oi_ in _oil_ are looked upon as the compounds
of _o_ and _i_ and of _o_ and _u_ respectively; whereas the latter element
of them is not _i_ and _u_, but _y_ and _w_.
The _th_ in _thin_ and the _th_ in _thine_ are dealt with as one {185} and
the same sound; whereas they are sounds specifically distinct.
The _ch_ in _chest_ is dealt with as a modification of _c_ (either with the
power of _k_ or of _s_); whereas its elements are _t_ and _sh_.
IV. _Redundancy._--As far as the representation of sounds is concerned the
letter _c_ is superfluous. In words like _citizen_ it may be replaced by
_s_; in words like _cat_ by _k_. In _ch_, as in _chest_, it has no proper
place. In _ch_, as in _mechanical_, it may be replaced by _k_.
_Q_ is superfluous, _cw_ or _kw_ being its equivalent.
_X_ also is superfluous, _ks_, _gz_, or _z_, being equivalent to it.
The diphthongal forms _ae_ and _oe_, as in _Aeneas_ and _Croesus_, except
in the way of etymology, are superfluous and redundant.
V. _Unsteadiness._--Here we have (amongst many other examples), 1. The
consonant _c_ with the double power of _s_ and _k_; 2. _g_ with its sound
in _gun_ and also with its sound in _gin_; 3. _x_ with its sounds in
_Alexander_, _apoplexy_, _Xenophon_.
In the foregoing examples a single sign has a double power; in the words
_Philip_ and _filip_, &c., a single sound has a double sign.
In respect to the degree wherein the English orthography is made
subservient to etymology, it is sufficient to repeat the statement that the
_c_, _ae_, and _oe_ are retained in the alphabet for etymological purposes
only.
The defects noticed in the preceding sections are _absolute_ defects, and
would exist, as they do at present, were there no language in the world
except the English. This is not the case with those that are now about to
be noticed; for them, indeed, the word _defect_ is somewhat too strong a
term. They may more properly be termed inconveniences.
Compared with the languages of the rest of the world the use of many
letters in the English alphabet is _singular_. The letter _i_ (when long or
independent) is, with the exception of England, generally sounded as _ee_.
With Englishmen it has a diphthongal power. The inconvenience of this is
the necessity that it imposes upon us, in studying foreign languages, of
{186} unlearning the sound which we give it in our own, and of learning the
sound which it bears in the language studied. So it is (amongst many
others) with the letter _j_. In English this has the sound of _dzh_, in
French of _zh_, and in German of _y_. From singularity in the use of
letters arises inconvenience in the study of foreign tongues.
In using _j_ as _dzh_ there is a second objection. It is not only
inconvenient, but it is theoretically incorrect. The letter _j_ was
originally a modification of the vowel _i_. The Germans, who used it as the
semivowel _y_, have perverted it from its original power less than the
English have done, who sound it _dzh_.
With these views we may appreciate, of the English alphabet and
orthography,
I). _Its convenience or inconvenience in respect to learning foreign
tongues._--The sound given to the _a_ in _fate_ is singular. Other nations
sound it as _a_ in _father_.
The sound given to the _e_, long (or independent), is singular. Other
nations sound it either as _a_ in _fate_, or as _['e] ferm['e]_.
The sound given to the _i_ in _bite_ is singular. Other nations sound it as
_ee_ in _feet_.
The sound given to the _oo_ in _fool_ is singular. Other nations sound it
as the _o_ in _note_, or as the _['o] chiuso_.
The sound given to the _u_ in _duck_ is singular. Other nations sound it as
the _u_ in _bull_.
The sound given to the _ou_ in _house_ is singular. Other nations, more
correctly, represent it by _au_ or _aw_.
The sound given to the _w_ in _wet_ is somewhat singular, but is also
correct and convenient. With many nations it is not found at all, whilst
with those where it occurs it has the sound (there or thereabouts) of _v_.
The sound given to _y_ is somewhat singular. In Danish it has a vowel
power. In German the semivowel sound is spelt with _j_.
The sound given to _z_ is not the sound which it has in German and Italian;
but its power in English is convenient and correct.
The sound given to _ch_ in _chest_ is singular. In other languages it has
generally a guttural sound; in French that of {187} _sh_. The English usage
is more correct than the French, but less correct than the German.
The sound given to _j_ (as said before) is singular.
II.) _The historical propriety of certain letters._--The use of _i_ with a
diphthongal power is not only singular and inconvenient, but also
historically incorrect. The Greek _iota_, from whence it originates, has
the sound of _i_ and _ee_, as in _pit_ and _feet_.
The _y_, sounded as in _yet_, is historically incorrect. It grew out of the
Greek [upsilon], a vowel, and no semivowel. The Danes still use it as such,
that is, with the power of the German _ue_.
The use of _j_ for _dzh_ is historically incorrect.
The use of _c_ for _k_ in words derived from the Greek, as _mechanical_,
_ascetic_, &c., is historically incorrect. The form _c_ is the
representative of [gamma] and [sigma] and not of the Greek _kappa_.
In remodelling alphabets the question of historical propriety should be
recognized. Other reasons for the use of a particular letter in a
particular sense being equal, the historical propriety should decide the
question. The above examples are illustrative, not exhaustive.
s. 253. _On certain conventional modes of spelling._--In the Greek language
the sounds of _o_ in _not_ and of _o_ in _note_ (although allied) are
expressed by the unlike signs or letters [omicron] and [omega],
respectively. In most other languages the difference between the sounds is
considered too slight to require for its expression signs so distinct and
dissimilar. In some languages the difference is neglected altogether. In
many, however, it is expressed, and that by some modification of the
original letter.
Let the sign (-) denote that the vowel over which it stands is long, or
independent, whilst the sign (U) indicates shortness, or dependence. In
such a case, instead of writing _not_ and _n[omega]t_, like the Greeks, we
may write _n[)o]t_ and _n[=o]t_, the sign serving for a fresh letter.
Herein the expression of the nature of the sound is natural, because the
natural use of (-) and (U) is to express length or shortness, dependence or
independence. Now, supposing the broad sound of _o_ {188} to be already
represented, it is very evident that, of the other two sounds of _o_, the
one must be long (independent), and the other short (dependent); and as it
is only necessary to express one of these conditions, we may, if we choose,
use the sign (-) alone; its presence denoting length, and its absence
shortness (independence or dependence).
As signs of this kind, one mark is as good as another; and instead of (-)
we may, if we choose, substitute such a mark as (') (and write
_n['o]t_=_n[=o]t_=_n[omega]t_=_n[=o]te)_; provided only that the sign (')
expresses no other condition or affection of a sound. This use of the mark
('), _viz._ as a sign that the vowel over which it is placed is long
(independent), is common in many languages. But is this use of (') natural?
For a reason that the reader has anticipated, it is not natural, but
conventional. It is used elsewhere not as the sign of _quantity_, but as
the sign of _accent_; consequently, being placed over a letter, and being
interpreted according to its natural meaning, it gives the idea, not that
the syllable is long, but that it is emphatic or accented. Its use as a
sign of quantity is an orthographical expedient, or a conventional mode of
spelling.
The English language abounds in orthographical expedients; the mode of
expressing the quantity of the vowels being particularly numerous. To begin
with these:
The reduplication of a vowel where there is but one syllable (as in _feet_,
_cool_), is an orthographical expedient. It merely means that the syllable
is long (or independent).
The juxta-position of two different vowels, where there is but one syllable
(as in _plain_, _moan_), is an orthographical expedient. It generally means
the same as the reduplication of a vowel, _i.e._, that the syllable is long
(independent).
The addition of the _e_ mute, as in _plane_, _whale_ (whatever may have
been its origin), is, at present, but an orthographical expedient. It
denotes the lengthening of the syllable.
The reduplication of the consonant after a vowel, as in _spotted_,
_torrent_, is in most cases but an orthographical expedient. It merely
denotes that the preceding vowel is short (dependent). {189}
The use of _ph_ for _f_ in _Philip_, is an orthographical expedient,
founded upon etymological reasons.
The use of _th_ for the simple sound of the first consonant in _thin_ and
_thine_, is an orthographical expedient. The combination must be dealt with
as a single letter.
_X_, however, and _q_ are not orthographical expedients. They are
orthographical compendiums.
The above instances have been adduced as illustrations only. Further
details will be found hereafter. For many of them we can give a reason (for
instance, for the reduplication of a consonant to express the shortness of
the preceding vowel), and of many of them we can give an historical account
(see Chapter X.).
s. 254. The mischief of orthographical expedients is this:--When a sign, or
letter, is used in a _conventional_, it precludes us from using it (at
least without further explanation) in its _natural_ sense: _e.g._, the
double _o_ in _mood_ constitutes but one syllable. If in a foreign language
we had, immediately succeeding each other, first the syllable _mo_, and
next the syllable _od_, we should have to spell it _mo-od_, or _moeod_ or
_mo-[o-hook]d_, &c. Again, it is only by our knowledge of the language that
the _th_ in _nuthook_, is not pronounced like the _th_ in _burthen_. In the
languages of India the true sound of _t_ + _h_ is common. This, however, we
cannot spell naturally because the combination _th_ conveys to us another
notion. Hence such combinations as _thh_, or _t`_, &c., in writing Hindoo
words.
A second mischief of orthographical conventionalities, is the wrong notions
that they engender, the eye misleading the ear. That _th_ is really _t_ +
_h_, no one would have believed had it not been for the spelling.
s. 255. The present section is the partial application of the preceding
observations. It is a running commentary upon the orthographical part of
Dr. Johnson's Grammar. Presuming a knowledge of the detail of the English
orthography, it attempts an explanation of some of its leading characters.
Many of these it possesses in common with other tongues. Several are
peculiar to itself. {190}
"_A_, sounded as _aw_, or as a modification of _o_."--_A_, as in _father_,
and _o_, as in _note_ (as may be seen in p. 150), form the extremities of
the vowel system. Notwithstanding this, the two sounds often interchange.
The orthographical systems of most languages bear witness to this. In
French the _au_ in _autel_ has the sound of _o_; in Danish _aa_=_o_
(_baade_ being pronounced _bohde_); in Swedish _[oa]_ has the same power.
In Old English the forms _hond_, _strond_, &c., occur, instead of _hand_,
strand, &c. In Anglo-Saxon, br['a]d, st['a]n, &c., correspond to the
English forms _broad_, _stone_. I am not able to say whether _a_ changes
oftenest to _o_, or _o_ to a. The form _hond_ is older than the form
_hand_. In the word _salt_, however, the _a_ was pronounced as the _a_ in
_fat_ before it was pronounced (as at present) like the _o_ in _not_. If
this were not the case it would never have been spelt with an a. In the
words _launch_ and _haunch_, by some called _lanch_, _hanch_, and by others
_lawnch_, _hawnch_, we find a present tendency to interchange these sounds.
The change from _a_ to _o_ takes place most especially before the liquid
_l_, _wall_, _call_, _fall_. When the liquid _l_ is followed by another
consonant, it (_viz._ _l_) is generally sunk in pronunciation, _falcon_,
_salmon_, &c., pronounced _faucon_, _sammon_, or _saumon_. The reason of
this lies in the following fact, _viz._, _that syllables wherein there are,
at the same time, two final consonants and a long vowel, have a tendency to
become shortened by one of two processes, viz., either by ejecting one of
the consonants, or by shortening the vowel_. That the _l_ in _falcon_ is
affected not by the change of _a_ to _o_, but by the change of a short
vowel to a long, or of a slender one to a broad one, is shown in the
tendency which the common people have to say _hode_ for _hold_, as well as
by the Scotch form _gowd_ for _gold_. This fact bears upon the difficult
problem in the Greek (and in other languages), _viz._, whether the
_lengthening_ of the vowel in words like _[Greek: odous]_ (compared with
_[Greek: odontos]_), is the cause or the effect of the rejection of the
consonant.
"_E_ is long, as in _scene_; or short, as in _cellar_."'--_Johnson._ It has
been stated before that the (so-called) long sound of _e_ is non-existent,
and the _e_ in _scene_, is the (so-called) long sound of the _i_ in _pit_.
{191}
For the power of _e_ in _since_ and _once_, see the remarks on _s_.
For the power of _e_ in _hedge_ and _oblige_, see the remarks on _g_.
The power of _e_ mute in words like _cane_, _bane_, _tune_, _robe_, _pope_,
_fire_, _cure_, _tube_, has already been noticed. It serves to denote the
length of the preceding vowel. For this purpose it is retained; but it was
not for this purpose that it was invented. Originally it expressed a sound,
and it is only by a change of language that it has come, as it were by
accident, to be an orthographical expedient.
Let a word consist of two syllables. Let the latter end in a vowel. Let
there be between the vowel of the first and the vowel of the second
syllable, one consonant and no more, _e. g._, _namae_. Let the consonant
belong to the root of the word; and let the first syllable of the word be
the essential and the radical part of it. Let this same syllable (as the
essential and radical part of it) have an accent. The chances are that,
under such circumstances, the vowel of the first syllable will be long
(independent), just as the chances are that a vowel followed by two
consonants will be short. Let a change in language affect the _final_
vowel, so that a word which was originally pronounced _nama_, should
become, first, _name_, and afterwards _n[=a]m_, _naim_, or _naem_; the
vowel being sounded as the _a_ in _fate_. Let the final _e_, although lost
in pronunciation, be retained in the spelling. The chances are that, the
above conditions being given, such an _e_ (final and mute) shall, whenever
it occurs, occur at the end of a long syllable. The next process is for a
succeeding generation to mistake a coincidence for a sign, and to imagine
that an _e_ mute expresses the length of syllable.
I consider this to be the key to the use of the _e_ mute in all words where
it is preceded by one consonant only.
From the circumstance that the French and the English are the only nations
wherein the _e_ mute is part and parcel of the orthography, it has been
hastily imagined that the employment of it is to be attributed to the
Norman Conquest. The truth, however, is, that we find it equally in words
of Saxon and of Norman origin.
The fact that, in certain words, an _e_ mute is preceded by {192} two
consonants and by a short vowel, does not militate against the view given
above.
"_I_ has a sound, long, as in _fine_, and short, as in _fin_. That is
eminently observable in _i_, which may be likewise remarked in other
letters, that the short sound is not the long sound contracted, but a sound
wholly different."--_Johnson._ This extract has been made in order to add
the authority of Johnson to the statement so often repeated already;
_viz._, that the _i_ in _bite_ is not the long sound of the _i_ in _bit_.
For the sound of _u_ in _guest_, _prorogue_, _guard_, see the remarks on
_g_.
As a vowel, _y_ is wholly superfluous. It is a current remark that more
words end in _y_ (_fortify_, _pretty_) than in any other letter. This is
true only in respect to their spelling. As a matter of _speech_, the _y_
final has always the sound either of the _ee_ in _feet_, or of the _i_ in
_bite_. Such is the case with the words _fortify_ and _pretty_, quoted
above. For some reason or other, the vowel _e_ is never, in English,
written at the end of words, unless when it is mute; whilst _i_ is never
written at all. Instead of _cri_, we write _cry_, &c. This is a peculiarity
of our orthography, for which I have no satisfactory reason. It _may_ be,
that with words ending in _e_, _y_ is written for the sake of showing that
the vowel is not mute, but sounded. Again, the adjectives ending in _y_ as
_any_, and the adverbs in _ly_, as _manly_, in the older stages of our
language ended, not in _y_, but in _ig_ (_manlig_, _aenig_); so that the
present _y_, in such words, may be less the equivalent of _i_ than the
compendium of _ig_. I venture this indication with no particular
confidence.
The _b_ in _debtor_, _subtile_, _doubt_, agrees with the _b_ in _lamb_,
_limb_, _dumb_, _thumb_, _womb_, in being mute. It differs, however, in
another respect. The words _debtor_, _subtle_, _doubt_, are of classical,
the words _lamb_, _limb_, _dumb_, &c., are of Saxon, origin. In _debtor_,
&c., the _b_ was, undoubtedly, at one time, pronounced, since it belonged
to a different syllable; _debitor_, _subtilis_, _dubito_, being the
original forms. I am far from being certain that with the other words,
_lamb_, &c., this was the case. With them the _b_ belonged (if it belonged
to the word at all) to the same syllable as the _m_. I think, {193}
however, that instead of this being the case, the _b_, in _speech_, never
made a part of the word at all; that it belongs now, and that it always
belonged, to the _written_ language only; and that it was inserted in the
spelling upon what may be called the principle of imitation. For a further
illustration of this, see the remarks on the word _could_.
"_Ch_ has a sound which is analysed into _tsh_, as _church_, _chin_,
_crutch_. _C_ might be omitted in the language without loss, since one of
its sounds might be supplied by _s_, and the other by _k_, but that it
preserves to the eye the etymology of words, as _face_ from _facies_,
_captive_ from _captivus_"--_Johnson._
Before _a_, _o_, _u_ (that is, before a full vowel), _c_ is sounded as _k_;
before _e_, _i_, and _y_ (that is, before a small vowel), it has the power
of _s_. This change of sound according to the nature of the vowel
following, is so far from being the peculiarity of the English, that it is
common in all languages; except that sometimes _c_, instead of becoming
_s_, becomes _ts_, _tsh_, _ksh_, in other words, some other sibilant; _but
always a sibilant_. A reference to p. 153 will explain this change. At a
certain time, _k_ (written _c_, as is the case in Latin) becomes changed by
the vowel following into _ksh_, and from thence into _s_, _ts_, or _tsh_.
That the syllables _cit_, _cyt_, _cet_, were at one time pronounced _kit_,
_kyt_, _ket_, we believe: 1. from the circumstance that if it were not so,
they would have been spelt with an _s_; 2. from the comparison of the Greek
and Latin languages, where the words _cete_, _circus_, _cystis_, Latin, are
[Greek: kete, kirkos], [Greek: kustis], Greek.
In the words _mechanical_, _choler_, &c., derived from the Greek, it must
not be imagined that the _c_ represents the Greek _kappa_ or [kappa]. The
combination _c_ + _h_ is to be dealt with as a single letter. Thus it was
that the Romans, who had in their language neither the sound of [chi], nor
the sign [kappa], rendered the Greek _chi_ ([chi]), just as by _th_ they
rendered [theta], and by _ph_, [phi].
The faulty representation of the Greek [chi] has given rise to a faulty
representation of the Greek [kappa], as in _ascetic_, from [Greek:
asketikos].
"_C_, according to the English orthography, never ends a {194} word;
therefore we write _stick_, _block_, which were originally _sticke_,
_blocke_. In such words _c_ is now mute."--_Johnson._ Just as there was a
prejudice against _i_ or _e_ ending a word there seems to have been one in
the case of c. In the word _Frederick_ there are three modes of spelling:
1. Frederic; 2. Frederik; 3. Frederick. Of these three it is the last only
that seems, to an Englishman, natural. The form Frederic seems
exceptionable, because the last letter is _c_, whilst Frederik is objected
to because _k_ comes in immediate contact with the short vowel.
Now the reason against _c_ ending a word seems this. From what has been
remarked above, _c_ seems, in and of itself, to have no power at all.
Whether it shall be sounded as _k_ or as _s_ seems undetermined, except by
the nature of the vowel following. If the vowel following be small,
_c_=_s_, if full, _c_=_k_. But _c_ followed by nothing is equivocal and
ambiguous. Now _c_ final is _c_ followed by nothing; and therefore _c_
equivocal, ambiguous, indefinite, undetermined. This is the reason why _c_
is never final. Let there be such words as _sticke_ and _blocke_. Let the
_k_ be taken away. The words remain _stice_, _bloce_. The _k_ being taken
away, there is a danger of calling them _stise_, _blose_.
A verbal exception being taken, the statement of Dr. Johnson, that in words
like _stick_ and _block_ the _c_ is mute, is objectionable. The mute letter
is not so much the _c_ as the _k_.
"_G_ at the end of a word is always hard, as _ring_, _sing_."--_Johnson._ A
verbal exception may be taken here. _Ng_, is not a combination of the
sounds of _n_+_g_, but the representation of a simple single sound; so
that, as in the case of _th_ and _sh_, the two letters must be dealt with
as a single one.
"_G_ before _n_ is mute, as _gnash_, _sign_, _foreign_."--_Johnson._ The
three words quoted above are not in the same predicament. In words like
_gnash_ the _g_ has been silently dropped on the score of euphony (see
remarks on _k_); in _sign_ and _foreign_ the _g_ has not been dropped, but
changed. It has taken the allied sound of the semivowel _y_, and so, with
the preceding vowel, constitutes a diphthong. {195}
Before _a_, _o_, _u_ (full vowels), _g_ has the sound, as in _gay_, _go_,
_gun_: before _e_, _i_, _y_, that of _gem_, _giant_.
At the end of a word (that is, followed by nothing at all), or followed by
a consonant, it has the same sound that it has before _a_, _o_,
_u_--_agog_, _grand_. This shows that such is its natural sound. In _hedge_
and _oblige_ the _e_ mute serves to show that the _g_ is to be pronounced
as _j_.
Let there be the word _r[)o]g_. Let the vowel be lengthened. Let this
lengthening be expressed by the addition of _e_ mute, _roge_. There is now
a risk of the word being called _roje_. This is avoided by inserting _u_,
as in _prorogue_. Why, however, is it that the _u_ runs no chance of being
pronounced, and the word of being sounded _prorogw['e]_? The reason for
this lies in three facts. 1. The affinities between the sounds of _ga_ and
_ka_. 2. The fact that _qu_ is merely _kw_. 3. The fact that in _qu_,
followed by another vowel, as in _quoit_ (pronounced _koyt_), _antique_,
&c., the _u_ is altogether omitted in pronunciation. In other words, the
analogy of _qu_ is extended to _gu_.
For the varied sounds of _gh_ in _plough_, _tough_, _enough_ (_enow_),
_through_, we must remember that the original sound of _gh_ was a hard
guttural, as is at present the case in Scotland, and between _g_, _h_, _f_,
_v_, _w_, there are frequent interchanges.
"_H_ is a note of aspiration."--It is under the notion that _th_, _ph_,
_sh_, as in _thin_, _thine_, _Philip_, _shine_, are aspirated sounds, that
_h_ is admitted in the spelling. As has been repeatedly stated, _th_, _ph_,
_sh_ are to be treated as single signs or letters.
"_J_, consonant, sounds uniformly like the soft _g_ (_i.e._, as in _gem_),
and is, therefore, a letter useless, except in etymology, as _ejaculation_,
_jester_, _jocund_, _juice_."--_Johnson._ It may be added that it never
occurs in words of Saxon origin, and that in the single word _Allelujah_ it
has the sound of _y_, as in the German.
_K_ never comes before _a_, _o_, _u_, or before a consonant. It is used
before _e_, _i_, _y_, where _c_ would, according to the English analogy, be
liable to be sounded as _s_; as in _kept_, _king_, _skirt_. These words, if
written _cept_, _cing_, _scirt_, would run the risk of being sounded
_sept_, _sing_, _sirt_. Broadly speaking, _k_ is never {196} used except
where _c_ would be inconvenient. The reason of this lies in the fact of
there being no such letter as _k_ in the Latin language. Hence arose in the
eyes of the etymologist the propriety of retaining, in all words derived
from the Latin (_crown_, _concave_, _concupiscence_, &c.), the letter _c_,
to the exclusion of _k_. Besides this, the Anglo-Saxon alphabet, being
taken from the Roman, excluded _k_, so that _c_ was written even before the
small vowels, _a_, _e_, _i_, _y_; as _cyning_, or _cining_, _a king_. _C_
then supplants _k_ upon etymological grounds only. In the languages derived
from the Latin this dislike to the use of _k_ leads to several
orthographical inconveniences. As the tendency of _c_, before _e_, _i_,
_y_, to be sounded as _s_ (or as a sound allied to _s_), is the same in
those languages as in others; and as in those languages, as in others,
there frequently occur such sounds as _kit_, _ket_, _kin_, &c., a
difficulty arises as to the spelling. If spelt _cit_, _cet_, &c., there is
the risk of their being sounded _sit_, _set_. To remedy this, an _h_ is
interposed--_chit_, _chet_, &c. This, however, only substitutes one
difficulty for another, since _ch_ is, in all probability, already used
with a different sound, _e.g._, that of _sh_, as in French, or that of _k_
guttural, as in German. The Spanish orthography is thus hampered. Unwilling
to spell the word _chimera_ (pronounced _kimera_) with a _k_; unable to
spell it with either _c_ or _ch_, it writes the word _quimaera_. This
distaste for _k_ is an orthographical prejudice. Even in the way of
etymology it is but partially advantageous, since in the other Gothic
languages, where the alphabet is less rigidly Latin, the words that in
English are spelt with a _c_, are there written with _k_,--_kam_, German;
_komme_, Danish; _skrapa_, Swedish;=_came_, _come_, _scrape_.
The use of _k_ final, as in _stick_, &c., has been noticed in p. 194.
"_Skeptic_, for so it should be written, not _sceptic_."--_Johnson._ Quoted
for the sake of adding authority to the statement made in p. 193, _viz._,
that the Greek _kappa_ is to be represented not by _c_, but by _k_.
"_K_ is never doubled, but _c_ is used before it to shorten the vowel by a
double consonant, as _c[)o]ckle_, _p[)i]ckle_."--_Johnson._ {197} This is
referable to the statement that _k_ is never used where _c_ is admissible.
"_K_ is used before _n_, _knell_, _knot_, but totally loses its
sound."--_Johnson._ This, however, is not the ease in the allied languages;
in German and Danish, in words like _knecht_, _knive_, the _k_ is sounded.
This teaches us that such was once the case in English. Hence we learn that
in the words _knife_, _knight_ (and also in _gnaw_, _gnash_), we have an
antiquated or obsolete orthography.
For the ejection of the sound of _l_ in _calf_, _salmon_, _falcon_, &c. see
under a. For the _l_ in _could_, see that word.
"_N_ is sometimes mute after _m_, as _damn_, _condemn_,
_hymn_."--_Johnson._ In all these words the _n_ originally belonged to a
succeeding syllable, _dam-no_, _condem-no_, _hym-nus_.
_Q_, accurately speaking, is neither a letter, nor an abbreviation. It is
always followed by _u_, as _queen_, _quilt_, and the two letters _qu_ must
be looked upon as a single sign, equivalent to (but scarcely an
abbreviation) of _kw_. _Q_ is not=_k_ alone. The combination _qu_, is never
sounded _koo_. Neither is _kw_. If it were so, there would be in the word
_queen_ (currently speaking) _three_ sounds of _u_, _viz._, two belonging
to _q_ (=_kw_), and one belonging to _u_ itself. _W_ being considered as=2
_u_: _q_=_k_ + 1/2 _w_. This view of _q_ bears upon the theory of words
like _prorogue_, &c.
The reader is referred to p. 152. There he is told that, when a word ends
in a flat consonant, _b_, _v_, _d_, _g_, the plural termination is not the
sound of _s_, but that of _z_ (_stagz_, _dogz_); although _s_ be the letter
_written_. Such also is the case with words ending in the vowels or the
liquids (_peaz_, _beanz_, _hillz_, not _peace_, _beance_, _hillce_). This
fact influences our orthography. The majority of words ending in _s_ are
found to be plural numbers, or else (what is the same thing in respect to
form) either genitive cases, or verbs of the third person singular; whilst
in the majority of these the _s_ is sounded as _z_. Hence, the inference
from analogy that _s_ single, at the end of words, is sounded as _z_. Now
this fact hampers the orthography of those words wherein _s_ final retains
its natural sound, as _since_, _once_, _mass_, _mace_; for let these be
{198} written _sins_, _ons_, _mas_, the chances are that they will be
pronounced _sinz_, _onz_, _maz_. To remedy this, the _s_ may be doubled, as
in _mass_. This, however, can be done in a few cases only. It cannot be
done conveniently where the vowel is long, the effect of a double consonant
being to denote that the preceding vowel is short. Neither can it be done
conveniently after a consonant, such combinations as _sinss_, &c., being
unsightly. This throws the grammarian upon the use of _c_, which, as stated
above, has, in certain situations, the power of _s_. To write, however,
simply _sinc_, or _onc_, would induce the risk of the words being sounded
_sink_, _onk_. To obviate this, _e_ is added, which has the double effect
of not requiring to be sounded (being mute), and of showing that the _c_
has the sound of _s_ (being small).
"It is the peculiar quality of _s_ that it may be sounded before all
consonants, except _x_ and _z_, in which _s_ is comprised, _x_ being only
_ks_, and _z_ only a hard [flat] or gross _s_. This _s_ is therefore
termed by grammarians _suae potestatis litera_, the reason of which the
learned Dr. Clarke erroneously supposed to be, that in some words it might
be doubled at pleasure."--_Johnson._ A reference to the current Greek
Grammars will indicate another reason for [sigma] being called _suae
potestatis litera_. It will there be seen that, whilst [pi], [beta],
[phi]--[kappa], [gamma], [chi]--[tau], [delta], [theta]--are grouped
together, as _tenues_, _mediae_, and _aspiratae_, and as _inter se
cognatae_, [sigma] stands by itself; [zeta] its media (flat sound) being
treated as a double letter, and _sh_, its so-called aspirate, being
non-existent in the Greek language.
The sound of _ti_ before a vowel, as in _salvation_, is explained in p.
153.
"_Th_ has two sounds; the one soft [flat], as _thus_, _whether_; the other
hard [sharp], as _thing_, _think_. The sound is soft [flat] in all words
between two vowels, as _father_, _whether_; and between _r_ and a vowel, as
_burthen_."--_Johnson._ The reason of the latter statement lies in the fact
of both the vowels and _r_ being _flat_ (see p. 152), and so exerting a
flattening influence upon the sounds in contact with them.
In the substantives _breath_ and _cloth_, the _th_ is sharp (_i.e._, as
_th_ in _thin_); in the verbs _breathe_ and _clothe_, the _th_ is flat
(_i.e._, {199} as _th_ in _thine_).--A great number of substantives may be
made verbs by changing the sound of their final consonant. However, with
the words _breathe_ and _clothe_, a second change has taken place, _viz._,
the vowel has been lengthened. Now of these two changes, _viz._, the
lengthening of the vowel, and the flattening of the consonant, which is the
one represented by the _e_ mute, in _clothe_ and _breathe_, as compared
with _cloth_ and _breath_? I imagine the former. Hence an exception is
taken to the following statement of Dr. Johnson:--"When it (_th_) is
softened [flattened] at the end of a word, an _e_ silent must be added, as
_breath_, _breathe_, _cloth_, _clothe_."
The sounds of the _s_ in _sure_, of the _t_ in _picture_ (when pronounced
_pictshure_), and of the _z_ in _azure_ and _glazier_, are explained in p.
153.
The present chapter is intended not to exhaust the list, but to illustrate
the character of those orthographical expedients which insufficient
alphabets, changes in language, and the influences of etymology engender
both in the English and in other tongues.
* * * * *
{200}
CHAPTER X.
HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE ENGLISH ALPHABET.
s. 256. The preceding chapter has exhibited the theory of a full and
perfect alphabet; it has shown how far the English alphabet falls short of
such a standard; and, above all, it has exhibited the various conventional
modes of spelling which the insufficiency of alphabets, combined with other
causes, has engendered. The present chapter gives a _history_ of our
alphabet, whereby many of its defects are _accounted for_. These defects,
it may be said, once for all, the English alphabet shares with those of the
rest of the world; although, with the doubtful exception of the French, it
possesses them in a higher degree than any.
With few, if any, exceptions, all the modes of writing in the world
originate, directly or indirectly, from the Phoenician, Hebrew, or Semitic
alphabet. This is easily accounted for when we call to mind,--1. The fact
that the Greek, the Latin, and the Arabian alphabets, are all founded upon
this; and, 2. The great influence of the nations speaking those three
languages. The present sketch, however, is given only for the sake of
accounting for defects.
s. 257. _Phoenician, Hebrew, or Semitic Period._--At a certain period the
alphabet of Palestine, Phoenicia, and the neighbouring languages of the
Semitic tribes, consisted of twenty-two separate and distinct letters. For
these see the Hebrew Grammars and the Phoenicia of Gesenius.
The chances are, that, let a language possess as few elementary articulate
sounds as possible, an alphabet of only twenty-two letters will be
insufficient. Now, in the particular case of the languages in point, the
number of elementary sounds, as we infer from the present Arabic, was above
the average. {201} It may safely be asserted, that the original Semitic
alphabet was _insufficient_ for even the Semitic languages.
It was, moreover, _inconsistent_: since sounds as like as those of _teth_
and _tau_ (mere variations of each other) were expressed by signs as unlike
as [Hebrew: T`] and [Hebrew: T]; whilst sounds as unlike as those of _beth_
with a point, and _beth_ without a point (_b_ and _v_), were expressed (if
expressed at all) by signs as like as [Hebrew: B] and [Hebrew: B].
In this state it was imported into Greece. Now, as it rarely happens that
any two languages have precisely the same elementary articulate sounds, so
it rarely happens that an alphabet can be transplanted from one tongue to
another, and be found, at once, to coincide.
The Greeks had, in all probability, sounds which were wanting in Palestine
and Phoenicia. In Palestine and Phoenicia it is certain that there were
sounds wanting in Greece.
Of the twenty-two Phoenician letters the Greeks took but twenty-one. The
eighteenth letter, _tsadi_, [Hebrew: TS], was never imported into Europe.
s. 258. _Greek Period._--Compared with the Semitic, the _Old_ Greek
alphabet ran thus:--
_Hebrew._ _Greek._ | _Hebrew._ _Greek._
|
1. [Alef] [Alpha]. | 13. [Mem] [Mu].
2. [Bet] [Beta]. | 14. [Nun] [Nu].
3. [Gimel] [Gamma]. | 15. [Samekh] [Sigma]?
4. [Dalet] [Delta]. | 16. [Ayin] [Omicron].
5. [He] [Epsilon]. | 17. [Pe] [Pi].
6. [Vav] [Digamma]. | 18. [Tsadi] --
7. [Zayin] [Zeta]. | A letter called
8. [Khet] [Eta]. | 19. [Kuf] koppa, afterwards
9. [Tet] [Theta]. | ejected.
10. [Yod] [Iota]. | 20. [Resh] [Rho].
11. [Kaf] [Kappa]. | 21. [Shin] [San] afterwards [Sigma]?
12. [Lamed] [Lambda]. | 22. [Tav] [Tau].
Such the order and form of the Greek and Hebrew letters. Here it may be
remarked, that, of each alphabet, it is only the modern forms that are
compared; the likeness in the _shape_ of the letters may be seen by
comparing them in their {202} older stages. Of these the exhibition, in a
work like the present, is inconvenient. They may, however, be studied in
the work already referred to in the _Phoenicia_ of Gesenius. The _names_ of
the letters are as follows:--
_Hebrew._ _Greek._ | _Hebrew._ _Greek._
|
1. Aleph Alpha. | 12. Lamed Lambda.
2. Beth Baeta. | 13. Mem Mu.
3. Gimel Gamma. | 14. Nun Nu.
4. Daleth Delta. | 15. Samech Sigma?
5. He E, _psilon_ | 16. Ayn O.
6. Vaw _Digamma_. | 17. Pi Pi.
7. Zayn Zaeta. | 18. Tsadi ----
8. Heth Haeta. | 19. Kof Koppa, _Archaic_.
9. Teth Thaeta. | 20. Resh Rho.
10. Yod I[^o]ta. | 21. Sin San, _Doric_.
11. Kaph Kappa. | 22. Tau Tau.
s. 259. The Asiatic alphabet of Phoenicia and Palestine is now adapted to
the European language of Greece. The first change took place in the manner
of writing. The Orientals wrote from right to left; the Greeks from left to
right. Besides this, the following principles, applicable whenever the
alphabet of one language is transferred to another, were recognised:--
1. Letters for which there was no use were left behind. This was the case,
as seen above, with the eighteenth letter, _tsadi_.
2. Letters expressive of sounds for which there was no precise equivalent
in Greek, were used with other powers. This was the case with letters 5, 8,
16, and probably with some others.
3. Letters of which the original sound, in the course of time, became
changed, were allowed, as it were, to drop out of the alphabet. This was
the case with 6 and 19.
4. For such simple single elementary articulate sounds as there was no sign
or letter representant, new signs, or letters, were invented. This
principle gave to the Greek alphabet the new signs [phi], [chi], [upsilon],
[omega].
5. The new signs were not mere modifications of the older {203} ones (as
was the case with [Hebrew: P], [Hebrew: P], [Hebrew: B], [Hebrew: B], &c.
in Hebrew), but new, distinct, and independent letters.
In all this there was an improvement. The faults of the newer Greek
alphabet consisted in the admission of the compendium [psi]=_ps_, and the
retention of the fifteenth letter (_samech_, _xi_), with the power of _ks_,
it being also a compendium.
s. 260. _The Italian or old Latin period._--That it was either from the
original Phoenician, or from the _old_ Greek, that the Italian alphabets
were imported, we learn from the existence in them of the letters _f_ and
_q_, corresponding respectively to the sixth and nineteenth letters; these
having, in the second stage of the Greek alphabet, been ejected.
s. 261. The first alphabet imported into Italy was the Etruscan. In this
the [beta], [delta], and [omicron] were ejected, their sounds (as it is
stated) not being found in the Etruscan language. Be it observed, that the
sounds both of [beta] and [delta] are _flat_. Just as in the Devonshire
dialect the flat sounds (_z_, _v_, &c.) have the preponderance, so, in the
Etruscan, does there seem to have been a preponderating quantity of the
sharp sounds. This prepares us for a change, the effects whereof exist in
almost all the alphabets of Europe. In Greek and Hebrew the third letter
(_gimel_, _gamma_) had the power of the flat mute _g_, as in _gun_. In the
Etruscan it had the power of _k_. In this use of the third letter the
Romans followed the Etruscans: but, as they had also in their language the
sound of _g_ (as in _gun_), they used, up to the Second Punic War, the
third letter (_viz._ _c_), to denote both sounds. In the Duillian column we
have MACESTRATOS, CARTHACINIENSES.[36] Afterwards, however, the separate
sign (or letter) _g_ was invented, being originally a mere modification of
c. The _place_ of _g_ in the alphabet is involved in the history of _z_.
s. 262. The Roman alphabet had a double origin. For the first two centuries
after the foundation of the city the alphabet used was the Etruscan,
derived directly from the Greek, and from the _old_ Greek. This accounts
for the presence of _f_ and _q_.
{204}
Afterwards, however, the Romans modified their alphabet by the alphabet of
the Italian Greeks; these Italian Greeks using the late Greek alphabet.
This accounts for the presence of _v_, originating in the Greek _ypsilon_.
In accommodating the Greek alphabet to their own language, the Latins
recognised the following principles:--
I. The ejection of such letters as were not wanted. Thus it was that the
seventh letter (_zayn_, _zaeta_) was thrown out of the alphabet, and the
new letter, _g_, put in its place. Subsequently, _z_ was restored for the
sake of spelling Greek words, but was placed at the end of the alphabet.
Thus also it was, that _thaeta_, _kappa_ (_c_ being equivalent to _k_), and
the fifteenth letter, were ejected, while [psi] and [chi] were never
admitted. In after-times the fifteenth letter (now _xi_) was restored, for
the same reason that _z_ was restored, and, like _z_, was placed at the end
of the alphabet.
II. The use of the imported letters with a new power. Hence the sixth
letter took the sound, not of _v_ or _w_, but of _f_; and the eighth of
_h_.
Beyond this the Romans made but slight alterations. In ejecting _kappa_,
_thaeta_ and _chi_, they did mischief. The same in changing the power of c.
The representation of [phi] by _ph_, and of [theta] by _th_ was highly
erroneous. The retention of _x_ and _q_ was unnecessary. _V_ and _j_, two
letters whereby the alphabet was really enriched, were mere modifications
of _u_ and _i_ respectively. _Y_ also seems a modification of _v_.
Neither the Latin, Greek, nor Hebrew orthographies were much warped to
etymological purposes.
It should be observed, that in the Latin the letters have no longer any
names (like _beth_, _baeta_), except such as are derived from their powers
(_be_, _ce_).
It may now be seen that with a language containing such sounds as the _th_
in _thin_ and _thine_, and the _ch_ in the German _auch_, it is to their
advantage to derive their alphabet from the Greek; whilst, with a language
containing such sounds as _h_ and _v_, it is to their advantage to derive
it from the Latin.
It may also be seen, that, without due alterations and {205} additions, the
alphabet of one country will not serve as the alphabet of another.
s. 263. _The Moeso-Gothic alphabet._--In the third century the classical
alphabets were applied to a Gothic language. I use the word alphabets
because the Moeso-Gothic letters borrowed from both the Latin and the
Greek. Their form and order may be seen in Hickes' Thesaurus and in Lye's
Grammar. With the Greek they agree in the following particulars.
1. In the sound of the third letter being not that of [kappa] (_c_), but of
the _g_ in _gun_.
2. In retaining _kappa_ and _chi_.
3. In expressing the simple single sound of _th_ by a simple single sign.
This sign, however, has neither the shape nor alphabetical position of the
Greek _thaeta_.
With the Latin they agree, 1. in possessing letters equivalent to _f_, _g_,
_h_, _q_, _y_.
2. In placing _z_ at the end of the alphabet.
The Moeso-Gothic alphabet seems to have been formed on eclectic principles,
and on principles sufficiently bold. Neither was its application traversed
by etymological views. I cannot trace its influence, except, perhaps, in
the case of the Anglo-Saxon letters _th_ and _[wynn]_, upon any other
alphabet; nor does it seem to have been acted upon by any earlier Gothic
alphabet.
s. 264. _The Anglo-Saxon alphabet._--What sort of an alphabet the Gothic
languages possess we know: what sort of alphabet they require, we can
determine. For the following sounds (amongst others) current in the Gothic,
either one or both of the classical languages are deficient in
corresponding signs.
1. The _th_ in _thin_.--A sign in Greek ([theta]), but none in Latin.
2. The _th_ in _thine_.--A sign neither in Greek nor Latin.
3. The _ch_ in the German _auch_.--A sign in Greek ([chi]), but none in
Latin.
4. The flat sound of the same, or the probable sound of the _h_ in _thurh_,
_leoht_, _&c_., Anglo-Saxon.--A sign neither in Greek nor Latin. {206}
5. The _sh_ in _shine_.--A sign neither in Greek nor Latin.
6. The _z_ in _azure_.--A sign neither in Greek nor Latin.
7. The _ch_ in _chest_.--A sign neither in Greek nor Latin, unless we
suppose that at the time when the Anglo-Saxon alphabet was formed, the
Latin _c_ in words like _civitas_ had the power, which it has in the
present Italian, of _ch_.
8. The _j_ in _jest_.--A sign neither in Greek nor Latin, unless we admit
the same supposition in respect to _g_, that has been indicated in respect
to c.
9. The sound of the _kj_; in the Norwegian _kjenner_; _viz._, that
(thereabouts) of _ksh_.--A sign neither in Latin nor Greek.
10. The English sound of _w_.--A sign neither in Latin nor Greek.
11. The sound of the German _ue_, Danish _y_.--No sign in Latin; probably
one in Greek, _viz._, [upsilon].
12. Signs for distinguishing the long and short vowels, as [epsilon] and
[eta], [omicron] and [omega].--Wanting in Latin, but existing in Greek.
In all these points the classical alphabets (one or both) were deficient.
To make up for their insufficiency one of two things was necessary, either
to coin new letters, or to use conventional combinations of the old.
In the Anglo-Saxon alphabet (derived from the Latin) we have the following
features:--
1. _C_ used to the exclusion of _k_.
2. The absence of the letter _j_, either with the power of _y_, as in
German, of _zh_, as in French, or of _dzh_, as in English.
3. The absence of _q_; a useful omission, _cw_ serving instead.
4. The absence of _v_; _u_, either single or double, being used instead.
5. The use of _y_ as a vowel, and of _e_ as _y_.
6. The absence of _z_.
7. Use of _uu_, as _w_, or _v_: Old Saxon.
8. The use, in certain conditions, of _f_ for _v_.
9. The presence of the simple single signs _th_ and _dh_, for the _th_ in
_thin_, and the _th_ in _thine_.
Of the Anglo-Saxon alphabet we may safely say that it was _insufficient_.
The points wherein the Latin alphabet was {207} improved in its adaptation
to the Gothic tongues, are, 1. the admission of _th_ and _dh_; 2. the
evolution of _w_ out of _u_. Upon this latter circumstance, and on _k_ and
_z_, I make the following extract from the Latin Dedication of Otfrid's
Krist:--"Hujus enim linguae barbaries, ut est inculta et indisciplinabilis,
atque insueta capi regulari freno grammaticae artis, sic etiam in multis
dictis scriptu est difficilis propter literarum aut congeriem, aut
incognitam sonoritatem. Nam interdum tria _u u u_ ut puto quaerit in sono;
priores duo consonantes, ut mihi videtur, tertium vocali sono manente,"
And, further, in respect to other orthographical difficulties:--"Interdum
vero nec _a_, nec _e_, nec _i_, nec _u_, vocalium sonos praecanere potui,
ibi _y_ Grecum mihi videbatur ascribi. Et etiam hoc elementum lingua haec
horrescit interdum; nulli se characteri aliquotiens in quodam sono nisi
difficile jungens. _K_ et _z_ saepius haec lingua extra usum Latinitatis
utitur; quae grammatici inter litteras dicunt esse superfluas. Ob stridorem
autem dentium interdum ut puto in hac lingua _z_ utuntur, _k_ autem propter
faucium sonoritatem."
s. 265. _The Anglo-Norman Period._--Between the Latin alphabet, as applied
to the Anglo-Saxon, and the Latin alphabet, as applied to the
Norman-French, there are certain points of difference. In the first place,
the sound-system of the languages (like the French) derived from the Latin,
bore a greater resemblance to that of the Romans, than was to be found
amongst the Gothic tongues. Secondly, the alphabets of the languages in
point were more exclusively Latin. In the present French, Italian, Spanish,
and Portuguese, there is an exclusion of the _k_. This is not the case with
the Anglo-Norman. Like the Latins, the Anglo-Normans considered that the
sound of the Greek [theta] was represented by _th_: not, however, having
this sound in their language, there was no corresponding sign in their
alphabet. The greatest mischief done by the Norman influence was the
ejection from the English alphabet of _th_ and _dh_. In other respects the
alphabet was improved. The letters _z_, _k_, _j_, were either imported or
more currently recognised. The letter _y_ took a semi-vowel power, having
been previously represented by _e_; {208} itself having the power of _i_.
The mode of spelling the compound sibilant with _ch_ was evolved. My
notions concerning this mode of spelling are as follows:--At a given period
the sound of _ce_ in _ceaster_, originally that of _ke_, had become, first,
that of _ksh_, and, secondly, that of _tsh_; still it was spelt _ce_, the
_e_, in the eyes of the Anglo-Saxons, having the power of _y_. In the eyes
also of the Anglo-Saxons the compound sound of _ksh_, or _tsh_, would
differ from that of _k_ by the addition of _y_: this, it may be said, was
the Anglo-Saxon view of the matter. The Anglo-Norman view was different.
Modified by the part that, in the combination _th_, was played by the
aspirate _h_, it was conceived by the Anglo-Normans, that _ksh_, or _tsh_,
differed from _k_, not by the addition of _y_ (expressed by _e_), but by
that of _h_. Hence the combination _ch_ as sounded in _chest_. The same was
the case with _sh_. This latter statement is a point in the history, not so
much of an alphabet, as of an orthography.
The preceding sketch, as has been said more than once before, has been
given with one view only, _viz._, that of accounting for defective modes of
spelling. The history of almost all alphabets is the same. Originally
either insufficient, erroneous, or inconsistent, they are transplanted from
one language to a different, due alterations and additions rarely being
made.
s. 266. The reduplication of the consonant following, to express the
shortness (dependence) of the preceding vowel, is as old as the classical
languages: _terra_, [Greek: thalassa]. The following extract from the
Ormulum (written in the thirteenth century) is the fullest recognition of
the practice that I have met with. The extract is from Thorpe's Analecta
Anglo-Saxonica.
And whase wilenn shall this boc,
Efft otherr sithe writenn,
Himm bidde iec thatt hett write rihht,
Swa sum thiss boc himm taechethth;
All thwerrt utt affterr thatt itt iss
Oppo thiss firrste bisne,
Withth all swilc rime als her iss sett,
Withth alse fele wordess:
{209}
And tatt he loke wel thatt he
_An boc-staff write twiggess_,[37]
Eggwhaer thaer itt uppo thiss boc
Iss writenn o thatt wise:
Loke he well thatt hett write swa,
Forr he ne magg noht elless,
On Englissh writenn rihht te word,
Thatt wite he wel to sothe.
Concerning the various other orthographical expedients, such as the
reduplication of the vowel to express its length (_mood_), &c., I can give
no satisfactory detailed history. The influence of the Anglo-Norman, a
language derived from the Latin, established, in its fullest force, the
recognition of the etymological principle.
s. 267. "I cannot trace the influence of the Moeso-Gothic alphabet, except,
perhaps, in the case of the Anglo-Saxon letters _th_ and _[wynn]_, upon any
other alphabet; _nor does it seem to have been itself acted upon by any
earlier Gothic alphabet_." (See p. 205.) The reason for the remark in
Italics was as follows: In the Icelandic language the word _run_ signifies
a _letter_, and the word _runa_ a _furrow_, or _line_. It has also some
secondary meanings, which it is unnecessary to give in detail. Upon a vast
number of inscriptions, some upon rocks, some upon stones of a defined
shape, we find an alphabet different (at least, apparently so) from that of
the Greeks, Latins, and Hebrews, and also unlike that of any modern nation.
In this alphabet there is a marked deficiency of curved or rounded lines,
and an exclusive preponderance of straight ones. As it was engraved rather
than written, this is what we naturally expect. These letters are called
Runes, and the alphabet which they constitute is called the Runic alphabet.
Sometimes, by an extension of meaning, the Old Norse language, wherein they
most frequently occur, is called the Runic language. This is as incorrect
as to call a language an alphabetic language. To say, however, the Runic
stage of a language is neither inaccurate nor inconvenient. The Runic
alphabet, whether borrowed or invented by the early Goths, is of greater
antiquity {210} than either the oldest Teutonic or the Moeso-Gothic
alphabets. The forms, names, and order of the letters may be seen in
Hickes' Thesaurus, in Olai Wormii Literatura Runica, in Rask's Icelandic
Grammar, and in W. Grimm's Deutsche Runer.
The original number of the Runic letters is sixteen; expressing the sounds
of _f_, _u_, _th_, _o_, _r_, _k_, _h_, _n_, _a_, _i_, _s_, _t_, _b_, _l_,
_m_, _y_. To these are added four spurious Runes, denoting _c_, _x_, _ae_,
_oe_, and eight pointed Runes after the fashion of the pointed letters in
Hebrew. In all this we see the influence of the imported alphabet upon the
original Runes, rather than that of the original Runes upon the imported
alphabet. It should, however, be remarked, that in the Runic alphabet the
sound of _th_ in _thin_ is expressed by a simple sign, and that by a sign
not unlike the Anglo-Saxon th.
s. 268. _The Order of the Alphabet._--In the history of our alphabet, we
have had the history of the changes in the arrangement, as well as of the
changes in the number and power of its letters. The following question now
presents itself: _viz._, Is there in the order of the letters any _natural_
arrangement, or is the original as well as the present succession of
letters arbitrary and accidental? In the year 1835 I conceived, that in the
order of the Hebrew alphabet I had discovered a very artificial
arrangement. I also imagined that this artificial arrangement had been
detected by no one besides myself. Two years afterwards a friend[38] stated
to me that he had made a similar observation, and in 1839 appeared, in Mr.
Donaldson's New Cratylus, the quotation with which the present section will
be concluded. The three views in the main coincide; and, as each has been
formed independently (Mr. Donaldson's being the first recorded), they give
the satisfactory result of three separate investigations coinciding in a
theory essentially the same. The order of the Hebrew alphabet is as
follows:--
_Name._ _Sound._
1. _Aleph_ Either a vowel or a breathing.
2. _Beth_ B.
3. _Gimel_ G. as in _gun_.
{211}
4. _Daleth_ D.
5. _He_ Either a vowel or an aspirate.
6. _Vaw_ V.
7. _Zayn_ Z.
8. _Kheth_ a variety of K.
9. _Teth_ a variety of T.
10. _Yod_ I.
11. _Caph_ K.
12. _Lamed_ L.
13. _Mem_ M.
14. _Nun_ N.
15. _Samech_ a variety of S.
16. _Ayn_ Either a vowel or--?
17. _Pe_ P.
18. _Tsadi_ TS.
19. _Koph_ a variety of K.
20. _Resh_ R.
21. _Sin_ S.
22. _Tau_ T.
Let _beth_, _vaw_, and _pe_ (_b_, _v_, _p_) constitute a series called
series P. Let _gimel_, _kheth_, and _koph_ (_g_, _kh_, _k`_) constitute a
series called series K. Let _daleth_, _teth_, and _tau_ (_d_, _t`_, _t_)
constitute a series called series T. Let _aleph_, _he_, and _ayn_
constitute a series called the vowel series. Let the first four letters be
taken in their order.
1. _Aleph_ of the vowel series.
2. _Beth_ of series P.
3. _Gimel_ of series K.
4. _Daleth_ of series T.
Herein the consonant of series B comes next to the letter of the vowel
series; that of series K follows; and, in the last place, comes the letter
of series D. After this the order changes: _daleth_ being followed by _he_
of the vowel series.
5. _He_ of the vowel series.
6. _Vaw_ of series P.
7. _Zayn_ ----
8. _Kheth_ of series K.
9. _Teth_ of series T.
In this second sequence the _relative_ positions of _v_, _kh_, and _t`_ are
the same in respect to each other, and the same in respect to the vowel
series. The sequence itself is broken by the letter _zayn_, but it is
remarkable that the principle of the sequence is the same. Series P follows
the vowel, and series T is farthest from it. After this the system becomes
but fragmentary. Still, even now, _pe_, of series P, follows _ayn_; _tau_,
of {212} series D, is farthest from it; and _koph_, of series K, is
intermediate. I am satisfied that we have in the Hebrew alphabet, and in
all alphabets derived from it (consequently in the English), if not a
system, the rudiments of a system, and that the system is of the sort
indicated above; in other words, that the order of the alphabet is a
_circulating order_.
In Mr. Donaldson's hands this view is not only a fact, but an instrument of
criticism:--"The fact is, in our opinion, the original Semitic alphabet
contained only sixteen letters. This appears from the organic arrangement
of their characters. The remaining sixteen letters appear in the following
order:--_aleph_, _beth_, _gimel_, _daleth_, _he_, _vaw_, _kheth_, _teth_,
_lamed_, _mem_, _nun_, _samech_, _ayn_, _pe_, _koph_, _tau_. If we examine
this order more minutely, we shall see that it is not arbitrary or
accidental, but strictly organic, according to the Semitic articulation. We
have four classes, each consisting of four letters: the first and second
classes consist each of three mutes, preceded by a breathing; the third of
the three liquids and the sibilant, which, perhaps, closed the oldest
alphabet of all; and the fourth contains the three supernumerary mutes,
preceded by a breathing. We place the characters first vertically:--
Aleph [Alef] First breathing
Beth [Bet] B }
Gimel [Gimel] G } _Media._
Daleth [Dalet] D }
He [He] Second breathing.
Vaw [Vav] Bh }
Kheth [Khet] Gh } _Aspirate._
Teth [Tet] Dh }
Lamed [Lamed] L }
Mem [Mem] M } _Liquids._
Nun [Nun] N }
Samech [Samekh] S _The Sibilant_.
Ayn [Ayin] Third breathing.
Pe [Pe] P }
Koph [Kuf] K } _Tenues._
Tau [Tav] T }
In the horizontal arrangement we shall, for the sake of greater simplicity,
omit the liquids and the sibilant, and then we have {213}
_Breathings._ _Labials._ _Palatals._ _Linguals._
[Alef] [Bet] [Gimel] [Dalet]
[He] [Vav] [Khet] [Tet]
[Ayin] [Pe] [Kuf] [Tav]
In this we see, that, while the horizontal lines give us the arrangement of
the mutes according to the breathings, the vertical columns exhibit them
arranged according to the organ by which they are produced. Such a
classification is obviously artificial."
s. 269. _Parallel and equivalent orthographies._--Let there be in two given
languages the sound of _k_, as in _kin_. Let each of these languages
represent it by the same letter, _k_. In this case, the two orthographies
are identical. Let, however, one nation represent it by _k_, and another by
c. In this case the orthographies are not identical, but parallel. The same
is the case with combinations. Let one nation (say the Anglo-Saxon)
represent the sound of _y_ (in _ye_) by _e_, whilst another nation (the
Norse) represents it by _j_. What the Anglo-Saxon spells _ceaster_, the
Northman spells _kjaster_; and what the Northman spells _kjaere_, the
Anglo-Saxon spells _ceaere_. Let the sound of this _ce_ and _kj_ undergo a
change, and become _ksh_; _kjaere_ and _ceaere_, being pronounced
_kshaere_. The view of the Northman and Anglo-Saxon will be the same; each
will consider that the compound sound differs from the simple one by the
addition of the sound of _y_; that sound being expressed in one nation by
_e_, and in the other by _j_. In this case the two expressions of the
compound sound are parallel, its elements being considered the same,
although the signs by which those elements are expressed are different.
Let, however, a different view of the compound sound be taken. Let it be
thought that the sound of _ksh_ differs from that of _k_, not by the
addition of the sound of _y_, but by that of _h_; and so let it be spelt
_kh_ or _ch_. In this case the orthographies _kh_ and _kj_ (or _ce_) are
not parallel, but equivalent. They express the same sound, but they do not
denote the same elements. The same sound is, very possibly, expressed by
the Anglo-Saxon _ce_, the Norwegian _kj_, and the English _ch_. In this
case _ce_ and _kj_ are parallel, _ce_ and _ch_ equivalent, orthographies.
* * * * *
{214}
PART IV.
ETYMOLOGY.
--------
CHAPTER I.
ON THE PROVINCE OF ETYMOLOGY.
s. 270. The word etymology, derived from the Greek, in the current language
of scholars and grammarians, has a double meaning. At times it is used in a
wide, and at times in a restricted, sense. What follows is an exhibition of
the province or department of etymology.
If in the English language we take such a word as _fathers_, we are enabled
to divide it into two parts; in other words, to reduce it into two
elements. By comparing it with the word _father_, we see that the _s_ is
neither part nor parcel of the original word. The word _fathers_ is a word
capable of being analysed; _father_ being the original primitive word, and
_s_ the secondary superadded termination. From the word _father_, the word
_fathers_ is derived, or (changing the expression) deduced, or descended.
What has been said of the word _fathers_ may also be said of _fatherly_,
_fatherlike_, _fatherless_, &c. Now, from the word _father_, all these
words (_fathers_, _fatherly_, _fatherlike_ and _fatherless_) differ in
form, and (not, however, necessarily) in meaning. To become such a word as
_fathers_, &c., the word _father_ is changed. Of changes of this sort, it
is the province of etymology to take cognizance.
Compared with the form _fathers_, the word _father_ is the older form of
the two. The word _father_ is a word current in this the nineteenth
century. The same word was current in {215} the first century, although
under a different form, and in a different language. Thus, in the Latin
language, the form was _pater_; and earlier still, there is the Sanskrit
form _pitr_. Now, just as the word _father_, compared with _fathers_, is
original and primitive, so is _pater_, compared with _father_, original and
primitive. The difference is, that in respect to _father_ and _fathers_,
the change that takes place, takes place within the same language, whilst
the change that takes place between _pater_ and _father_ takes place within
different languages. Of changes of this latter kind it is the province of
etymology to take cognizance.
In its widest signification, etymology takes cognizance _of the changes of
the form of words_. However, as the etymology that compares the forms
_fathers_ and _father_ is different from the etymology that compares
_father_ and _pater_, we have, of etymology, two sorts: one dealing with
the changes of form that words undergo in one and the same language
(_father_, _fathers_), the other dealing with the changes that words
undergo in passing from one language to another (_pater_, _father_).
The first of these sorts may be called etymology in the limited sense of
the word, or the etymology of the grammarian. In this case it is opposed to
orthoepy, orthography, syntax, and the other parts of grammar. This is the
etymology of the ensuing pages.
The second may be called etymology in the wide sense of the word,
historical etymology, or comparative etymology.
It must be again repeated that the two sorts of etymology agree in one
point, viz., in taking cognizance of the _changes of form that words
undergo_. Whether the change arise from grammatical reasons, as _father_,
_fathers_, or from a change of language taking place in the lapse of time,
as _pater_, _father_, is a matter of indifference.
In the Latin _pater_, and in the English _father_, we have one of two
things, either two words descended or derived from each other, or two words
descended or derived from a common original source.
In _fathers_ we have a formation deduced from the radical word _father_.
{216}
In _fatherlike_ we have a compound word capable of being analysed into the
two primitive words, 1. _father_; 2. _like_.
With these preliminaries we may appreciate (or criticise) Dr. Johnson's
explanation of the word etymology.
"ETYMOLOGY, N. S. (_etymologia_, Lat.) [Greek: etumos] (_etymos_) _true_,
and [Greek: logos] (_logos_) _a word_.
"1. _The descent or derivation of a word from its original; the deduction
of formations from the radical word; the analysis of compounds into
primitives._
"2. _The part of grammar which delivers the inflections of nouns and
verbs._"
* * * * *
{217}