THE PAST PARTICIPLE.
s. 404. The participle in _-en_.--In the Anglo-Saxon this participle was
declined like the adjectives. Like the adjectives, it is, in the present
English, undeclined.
In Anglo-Saxon it always ended in _-en_, as _sungen_, _funden_, _bunden_.
In English this _-en_ is often wanting, as _found_, _bound_; the word
_bounden_ being antiquated. Words where the _-en_ is wanting may be viewed
in two lights; 1, they may be looked upon as participles that have lost
their termination; 2, they may be considered as praeterites with a
participial sense.
s. 405. _Drank, drunk, drunken._--With all words wherein the vowel of the
plural differs from that of the singular, the participle takes the plural
form. To say _I have drunk_, is to use an ambiguous expression; since
_drunk_ may be either a participle _minus_ its termination, or a praeterite
with a participial sense. To say _I have drank_, is to use a praeterite for
a participle. To say _I have drunken_, is to use an unexceptionable form.
In all words with a double form, as _spake_ and _spoke_, _brake_ and
_broke_, _clave_ and _clove_, the participle follows the form in _o_, as
_spoken_, _broken_, _cloven_. _Spaken_, _braken_, _claven_, are impossible
forms. There are degrees in laxity of language, and to say _the spear is
broke_ is better than to say _the spear is brake_.
These two statements bear upon the future history of the praeterite. That
of the two forms _sang_ and _sung_, one will, in the course of language,
become obsolete is nearly certain; and, as the plural form is also that of
the participle, it is the plural form which is most likely to be the
surviving one. {352}
s. 406. As a general rule, we find the participle in _-en_ wherever the
praeterite is strong; indeed, the participle in _-en_ may be called the
strong participle, or the participle of the strong conjugation. Still the
two forms do not always coincide. In _mow_, _mowed_, _mown_; _sow_,
_sowed_, _sown_; and several other words, we find the participle strong,
and the praeterite weak. I remember no instances of the converse. This is
only another way of saying that the praeterite has a greater tendency to
pass from strong to weak than the participle.
s. 407. In the Latin language the change from _s_ to _r_, and _vice
vers[^a]_, is very common. We have the double forms _arbor_ and _arbos_,
_honor_ and _honos_, &c. Of this change we have a few specimens in English.
The words _rear_ and _raise_, as compared with each other, are examples. In
Anglo-Saxon a few words undergo a similar change in the plural number of
the strong praeterites.
Ce['o]se, _I choose_; ce['a]s, _I chose_; curon, _we chose_; gecoren,
_chosen_.
Forle['o]se, _I lose_; forle['a]s, _I lost_; forluron, _we lost_;
forloren, _lost_.
Hreose, _I rush_; hre['a]s, _I rushed_; hruron, _we rushed_; gehroren,
_rushed_.
This accounts for the participial form _forlorn_, or _lost_, in New High
German _verloren_. In Milton's lines,
---- the piercing air
Burns _frore_, and cold performs the effect of fire.
_Paradise Lost_, b. ii.
we have a form from the Anglo-Saxon participle _gefroren_=_frozen_.
s. 408. The participle in _-d_, _-t_, or _-ed_.--In the Anglo-Saxon this
participle was declined like the adjective. Like the adjective, it is, in
the present English, undeclined.
In Anglo-Saxon it differed in form from the praeterite, inasmuch as it
ended in _-ed_, or _-t_, whereas the praeterite ended in _-ode_, _-de_, or
_-te_: as, _lufode_, _baernde_, _dypte_, praeterites; _gelufod_, _baerned_,
_dypt_, participles.
As the ejection of the _e_ reduces words like _baerned_ and _baernde_ to
the same form, it is easy to account for the present {353} identity of form
between the weak praeterites and the participles in _-d_: _e. g._, _I
moved_, _I have moved_, &c.
s. 409. In the older writers, and in works written, like Thomson's Castle
of Indolence, in imitation of them, we find prefixed to the praeterite
participle the letter _y-_, as _yclept_=_called_: _yclad_=_clothed_:
_ydrad_=_dreaded_.
The following are the chief facts and the current opinion concerning this
prefix:--
1. It has grown out of the fuller forms _ge-_: Anglo-Saxon, _ge-_: Old
Saxon, _gi-_: Moeso-Gothic, _ga-_: Old High German, _ka-_, _cha-_, _ga-_,
_ki-_, _gi-_.
2. It occurs in each and all of the Germanic languages of the Gothic stock.
3. It occurs, with a few fragmentary exceptions, in none of the
Scandinavian languages of the Gothic stock.
4. In Anglo-Saxon it occasionally indicates a difference of sense; as
_h[^a]ten_=_called_, _ge_-h[^a]ten=_promised_, _boren_=_borne_,
_ge_-boren=_born_.
5. It occurs in nouns as well as verbs.
6. Its power, in the case of nouns, is generally some idea of
_association_, or _collection_.--Moeso-Gothic, _sinths_=_a journey_,
_ga-sintha_=_a companion_; Old High German, _perc_=_hill_; _ki-perki_
(_ge-birge_)=_a range of hills_.
7. But it has also a _frequentative_ power; a frequentative power which is,
in all probability, secondary to its collective power: since things which
recur frequently recur with a tendency to collection or association; Middle
High German, _ge-rassel_=_rustling_; _ge-rumpel_=_c-rumple_.
8. And it has also the power of expressing the possession of a quality.
_Anglo-Saxon._ _English._ _Anglo-Saxon._ _Latin._
Feax _Hair_ _Ge_-feax _Comatus_.
Heorte _Heart_ _Ge_-heort _Cordatus_.
Stence _Odour_ _Ge_-stence _Odorus_.
This power is also a collective, since every quality is associated with the
object that possesses it: _a sea with waves_=_a wavy sea_. {354}
9. Hence it is probable that the _ga-_, _ki-_, or _gi-_, Gothic, is the
_cum_ of Latin languages. Such is Grimm's view, as given in Deutsche
Grammatik, i. 1016.
Concerning this, it may be said that it is deficient in an essential point.
It does not show how the participle past is collective. Undoubtedly it may
be said that every such participle is in the condition of words like
_ge-feax_ and _ge-heort_; _i. e._, that they imply an association between
the object and the action or state. But this does not seem to be Grimm's
view; he rather suggests that the _ge-_ may have been a prefix to verbs in
general, originally attached to all their forms, but finally abandoned
everywhere except in the case of the participle. The theory of this prefix
has yet to assume a satisfactory form.
* * * * *
{355}