DEFECTIVENESS AND IRREGULARITY.
s. 389. In s. 361 the distinction between irregularity and defectiveness
was slightly foreshadowed. In pp. 243, 267, it was exhibited in its
principles. In the present chapter the difference is more urgently insisted
on.
The words that have hitherto served as illustrations are the personal
pronouns _I_ and _me_, and the adjectives _good_, _better_, and _best_. See
the sections referred to above.
The view of these words was as follows: _viz._, that none of them were
irregular, but that they were all defective. _Me_ wanted the nominative,
_I_ the oblique cases. _Good_ was without a comparative, _better_ and
_best_ had no positive degree.
Now _me_ and _better_ may be said to make good the defectiveness of _I_ and
_good_; and _I_ and _good_ may be said to replace the forms wanting in _me_
and _better_. This gives us the principle of compensation. To introduce a
new term, _I_ and _me_, _good_ and _better_, may be said to be
complementary to each other.
What applies to nouns applies to verbs also. _Go_ and _went_ are not
irregularities. _Go_ is (at least in the present stage of our language)
defective in the past tense. _Went_ (at least in its current sense) is
without a present. The two words, however, compensate their mutual
deficiencies, and are to each other complementary.
The distinction between defectiveness and irregularity, is the first
instrument of criticism for coming to true views concerning the proportion
of the regular and irregular verbs.
The second instrument of criticism in determining the irregular verbs, is
the meaning that we attach to terms. {336}
It is very evident that it is in the power of the grammarian to raise the
number of etymological irregularities to any amount, by narrowing the
definition of the word irregular; in other words, by framing an exclusive
rule. The current rule of the common grammarians is that the praeterite is
formed by the addition of _-t_, or _-d_, or _-ed_. Now this position is
sufficiently exclusive; since it proscribes not only the whole class of
strong verbs, but also words like _bent_ and _sent_, where _-t_ exists, but
where it does not exist as _an addition_. The regular forms, it may be
said, should be _bended_ and _sended_.
Exclusive, however, as the rule in question is, it is plain that it might
be made more so. The regular forms might, by the _fiat_ of a rule, be
restricted to those in _-d_. In this case words like _wept_ and _burnt_
would be added to the already numerous list of irregulars.
Finally, a further limitation might be made, by laying down as a rule that
no word was regular, unless it ended in _-ed_.
Thus much concerning the modes of making rules exclusive, and,
consequently, of raising the amount of irregularities. This is the last art
that the philosophic grammarian is ambitious of acquiring. True etymology
reduces irregularity by making the rules of grammar, not exclusive, but
general. The _quantum_ of irregularity is in the inverse proportion to the
generality of our rules. In language itself there is no irregularity. The
word itself is only another name for our ignorance of the processes that
change words; and, as irregularity is in the direct proportion to the
exclusiveness of our rules, the exclusiveness of our rules is in the direct
proportion to our ignorance of etymological processes.
The explanation of some fresh terms will lead us towards (but not to) the
definition of the word irregular.
I. _Vital and obsolete processes._--The word _moved_ is formed from _move_,
by the addition of _-d_. The addition of _-d_ is the process by which the
present form is rendered praeterite. The word _fell_ is formed from _fall_,
by changing _a_ into e. The change of vowel is the process by which the
present form is {337} rendered praeterite. Of the two processes the result
is the same. In what respect do they differ?
For the sake of illustration, let a new word be introduced into the
language. Let a praeterite tense of it be formed. This praeterite would be
formed, not by changing the vowel, but by adding _-d_. No new verb ever
takes a strong praeterite. The like takes place with nouns. No new
substantive would form its plural, like _oxen_ or _geese_, by adding _-en_,
or by changing the vowel. It would rather, like _fathers_ and _horses_, add
the lene sibilant.
Now, the processes that change _fall_, _ox_, and _goose_ into _fell_,
_oxen_, and _geese_, inasmuch as they cease to operate on the language in
its present stage, are obsolete processes; whilst those that change _move_
into _moved_, and _horse_ into _horses_, operating on the language in its
present stage, are vital processes.
A definition of the word irregular might be so framed as to include all
words whose forms could not be accounted for by the vital processes. Such a
definition would, in the present English, make words like _bent_, _sought_,
&c. (the euphonic processes being allowed for), regular, and all the strong
verbs irregular.
The very fact of so natural a class as that of the strong verbs being
reduced to the condition of irregulars, invalidates such a definition as
this.
II. _Processes of necessity as opposed to processes of habit._--The
combinations _-pd-_, _-fd-_, _-kd-_, _-sd-_, and some others, are
unpronounceable. Hence words like _step_, _quaff_, _back_, _kiss_, &c.,
take after them the sound of _-t_: _stept_, _quafft_, &c. (the _sound_
being represented), being their praeterites, instead of _stepd_, _quaffd_.
Here the change from _-d_ (the natural termination) to _-t_ is a matter (or
process) of necessity. It is not so with words like _weep_ and _wept_, &c.
Here the change of vowel is not necessary. _Weept_ might have been said if
the habit of the language had permitted.
A definition of the word irregular might be so framed as to include all
words whose natural form was modified by any euphonic process whatever. In
this case _stept_ (modified by a {338} process of necessity), and _wept_
(modified by a process of habit), would be equally irregular.
A less limited definition might account words regular as long as the
process by which they are deflected from their natural form was a process
of necessity. Those, however, which were modified by a process of habit it
would class with the irregulars.
Definitions thus limited arise from ignorance of euphonic processes, or
rather from an ignorance of the generality of their operation.
III. _Ordinary processes as opposed to extraordinary processes._--The whole
scheme of language is analogical. A new word introduced into a language
takes the forms of its cases or tenses, &c., from the forms of the cases or
tenses, &c., of the old words. The analogy is extended. Now few forms (if
any) are so unique as not to have some others corresponding with them; and
few processes of change are so unique as not to affect more words than one.
The forms _wept_ and _slept_ correspond with each other. They are brought
about by the same process; _viz._ by the shortening of the vowel in _weep_
and _sleep_. The analogy of _weep_ is extended to _sleep_, and _vice
vers[^a]_. Changing our expression, a common influence affects both words.
The alteration itself is an ultimate fact. The extent of its influence is
an instrument of classification. When processes affect a considerable
number of words, they may be called ordinary processes; as opposed to
extraordinary processes, which affect one or few words.
When a word stands by itself, with no other corresponding to it, we confess
our ignorance, and say that it is affected by an extraordinary process, by
a process peculiar to itself, or by a process to which we know nothing
similar.
A definition of the word irregular might be so framed as to include all
words affected by extraordinary processes; the rest being considered
regular.
IV. _Positive processes as opposed to ambiguous processes._--The words
_wept_ and _slept_ are similarly affected. Each is changed from _weep_ and
_sleep_ respectively; and we know that {339} the process which affects the
one is the process that affects the other also. Here there is a positive
process.
Reference is now made to words of a different sort. The nature of the word
_worse_ is explained in p. 267, and the reader is referred to the section.
There the form is accounted for in two ways, of which only one can be the
true one. Of the two processes, each might equally have brought about the
present form. Which of the two it was, we are unable to say. Here the
process is ambiguous.
A definition of the word irregular might be so framed as to include all
words affected by ambiguous processes.
V. _Normal processes as opposed to processes of confusion._--Let a certain
word come under class A. Let all words under class A be similarly affected.
Let a given word come under class A. This word will be affected even as the
rest of class A is affected. The process affecting, and the change
resulting, will be normal, regular, or analogical.
Let, however, a word, instead of really coming under class A, _appear_ to
do so. Let it be dealt with accordingly. The analogy then is a false one.
The principle of imitation is a wrong one. The process affecting is a
process of confusion.
Examples of this (a few amongst many) are words like _songstress_,
_theirs_, _minded_, where the words _songstr-_, _their-_, and _mind-_, are
dealt with as roots, which they are not.
Ambiguous processes, extraordinary processes, processes of confusion--each,
or all of these are legitimate reasons for calling words irregular. The
practice of etymologists will determine what definition is most convenient.
With extraordinary processes we know nothing about the word. With ambiguous
processes we are unable to make a choice. With processes of confusion we
see the analogy, but, at the same time, see that it is a false one.
s. 390. _Could._--With all persons who pronounce the _l_ this word is truly
irregular. The Anglo-Saxon form is _cudhe_. The _-l_ is inserted by a
process of confusion.
_Can_, _cunne_, _canst_, _cunnon_, _cunnan_, _cudhe_, _cudhon_,
_cudh_--such are the remaining forms in Anglo-Saxon. None of them {340}
account for the _-l_. The presence of the _-l_ makes the word _could_
irregular. No reference to the allied languages accounts for it.
Notwithstanding this, the presence of the _-l_ is accounted for. In _would_
and _should_ the _-l_ has a proper place. It is part of the original words,
_will_ and _shall_. A false analogy looked upon _could_ in the same light.
Hence a true irregularity; _provided that the_ L _be pronounced_.
The L, however, is pronounced by few, and that only in pursuance to the
spelling. This reduces the word _could_ to an irregularity, not of
language, but only of orthography.
That the mere ejection of the _-n_ in _can_, and that the mere lengthening
of the vowel, are not irregularities, we learn from a knowledge of the
processes that convert the Greek [Greek: odontos] (_odontos_) into [Greek:
odous] (_odows_).
s. 391. The verb _quoth_ is truly defective. It is found in only one tense,
one number, and one person. It is the third person singular of the
praeterite tense. It has the further peculiarity of preceding its pronoun.
Instead of saying _he quoth_, we say _quoth he_. In Anglo-Saxon, however,
it was not defective. It was found in the other tenses, in the other
number, and in other moods. _Ic cwedhe_, _thu cwyst_, _he cwydh_. _Ic
cwaedh_, _th['u] cwaedhe_, _he cwaedh_, _we cwaedon_, _ge cwaedon_, _hi
cwaedon_. Imperative, _cwedh_. Participle, _gecweden_. In the Scandinavian
it is current in all its forms. There, however, it means, not _to speak_
but to _sing_. As far as its conjugation goes, it is strong. As far as its
class goes, it follows the form of _speak_, _spoke_. Like speak, its
Anglo-Saxon form is in _ae_, as _cwaedh_. Like one of the forms of _speak_,
its English form is in o, as _quoth_, _spoke_.
The whole of the present chapter is indicative of the nature of
irregularity, and of the elements that should enter into the definition of
it, rather than exhaustive of the detail.
The principle that I recognise for myself is to consider no word irregular
unless it can be proved so. This view includes the words affected by
ambiguous processes, and by processes of confusion, and no others. The
words affected by {341} extraordinary processes form a provisional class,
which a future increase of our etymological knowledge may show to be
regular. _Worse_ and _could_ (its spelling being considered) are the
fairest specimens of our irregulars. The class, instead of filling pages,
is exceedingly limited.
* * * * *
{342}